People are failing to realize the political realities we live in. This proposal has a realistic chance of succeeding. Is it perfect? No, and Google admits that -- again, politics have to be taken into account. I also agree with leaving out wireless broadband. At the moment, wireless just doesn't have the bandwidth to support everything. I think wireless competition will keep it mostly neutral anyway. Frankly, I'd rather have increased competition in wired broadband instead of gov't regulation (which can be a slippery slope). In the meantime, a compromise is the only realistic way to make progress.
thank you Google, for helping to clean up all the mess around this. I'll continue to do my best to help people realize that Google is still the good guy in this fight, but this post really helps.
By creating an alliance with Verizon you created a precedent. Now when others start doing the same they will point to Google and Verizon, "they've done it, we're just following their lead, shut up and take it?" The fact is that right now we are more neutral than we'll be in the future, and this pact legitimizes the less neutral future. I've lost a sizable chunk of my respect for this company.
I don't agree with this. I don't see why wireless needs it's own rules for access. Sure there is less bandwidth, but I'd much rather see pricing changes, or some other solution to combat this, rather then limiting areas of the internet. If people want to download torrents over wireless that is fine, just charge them accordingly. If they are happy to pay $200 a month to do it then take their money and build up your network to support it.
"If adopted, this proposal would for the first time give the FCC the ability to preserve the open Internet through enforceable rules on broadband providers."
This is like the founders excluding free press and boasting about it.
Saying *at all* that wired and wireless are to be treated differently as regards the proposal is 100% exemplary of why a clear line needs to be drawn for Net Neutrality.
A relevant line from the US Constitutional debates: "An imperfect enumeration renders the rights of the people incomplete." -James Wilson (paraphrased)
By "mostly neutral" I meant minimal traffic shaping. Yeah, I guess the term I used is a little like "kinda pregnant" but I think you get the point.
Also, nothing says that wireless network neutrality can't be revisited in the future. This proposal isn't meant to be the final word.
I don't understand why people have such a problem with Google and Verizon working together on this proposal. Google provides content, and Verizon delivers it -- network neutrality affects both sides and a compromise requires both sides to work together. People disagree with my comment about new regulation being a slippery slope, but then suggest Google and Verizon working together is just that.
Like the post says...its a start of a discussion. This proposal is not the law, if you don't like it or agree with it, then make constructive criticisms and suggest better ideas. It makes no sense to make comments like "Google sold us out. I'm going to Bing!"...BTW, I'm sure BING owners aren't synonymous with fairness and open either. If I were to pick sides, I'd still go with Google. I didn't like some points of this proposal, but I'm not quitting google because of it. It takes courage to take a side with an issue like this, stop being like the tea-party idiots, and provide better ideas, instead of advocating Google lynchings. That's why nothing ever gets done in America. Everybody's ready to blame, and start flame wars, instead of helping. Sheesh!
Really bad excuses, my friends. In the past Google WAS one of the champions of net neutrality. But now it is over.
Now, Google is clearly against net neutrality, and that is pretty clear with this post. Your words are full of bad excuses, the same that the ISP are using to fight against net neutrality.
By the way, if the political situation is bad, it is the momento to fight, not to surrender.
Yeah, the proposal is the "beginning of the discussion."
Do you seriously expect the final legislative product to move *toward* neutrality? Expect more compromises. When the corporate champion of net neutrality turns out to be completely spineless, it's a bad omen.
will you please stop saying 'the public internet.' you're creating new, nastily useful semantics in order to distort our basic understanding of what the internet is. there is no 'public internet' like some rundown municipal library - there is the internet. And Google's don't be evil codswallop is getting harder to swallow with each passing day.
Google's position here is motivated by gross self interest. They are getting into bed with verizon, because they think, strategically, that they have to be in bed with verizon. this gets them in bed with verizon.
they are throwing the consumer, and some pretty hard won tenets of the internet under the bus in the process.
So, if this proposal exists because telcos need to handle massive mobile data consumption, why doesn't google help them get a wider wireless spectrum or whatever they need instead of proposing this controversial measure ?
Restrictive internet access for mobile users it's not only unethical, it will confuse users, and set the foundation for unfair competition.
This policy not only will affect USA, it will influence many other nations across the globe, and as the leading internet company it's your responsability to set the example.
This is why as a user of Android and almost every google service... I hope you review your stance on the matter.
So you don't like the proposal...Let's hear your suggestions? If you were asked to implement 'net neutrality' how would you do it? Let's hear the reasonable ideas you have that doesn't force someone to do something? enough of this, I'm quitting google, because its being "Evil" bullshit! Let me see your ideas and let's hear everyone else shoot holes in your theories.
It's obvious what's going on here. To protect its monopolies, Google wants AT LEAST the constraints laid out in this policy proposal, but would have no trouble with more. So, it is pushing for these, while the lobbying groups to which it gives so much money are crying, "Sellout!" and pushing for yet more onerous regulations. So, if government listens EITHER to this proposal or to that of the lobbyists, Google wins. Google only loses -- by remaining susceptible to new competitors -- if government keeps its hands off the Internet.
"FACT: Another aspect of the joint proposal would allow broadband providers to offer certain specialized services to customers, services which are not part of the Internet. So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability"
I'm sorry, but this is exactly what should never happen. Basically, this opens it up for "Oh, you like to play MMOs? We have this service that gives you great speed for Warcraft for just $10 more!" Where they're limiting the speed on the base package.
Rinse and repeat for any bandwidth-intensive task. Now, I'm sure someone will chim in with "But I'm sure that your base internet subscription price will decrease!" to which I say BULLSH*T. I've never seen any service or product drop its base price when it shifts features out to additional serivce tiers. Cable's never done it. My phone service sure as heck hasn't. This is just going to allow for an additional squeeze on consumers.
I know you didn't make a 180 deg turn into Evil. You've made a compromise.
Unfortunately, you are expected not to make such compromises. You're expected to loose money, if it takes it, if it helps the general public or internet consumers.
I used to dream one of my projects will be acquired by Google - that I'll work for Google. But I don't like you anymore.
You might not be plain evil, but now you're just like everyone else.
"these services must be “distinguishable in purpose and scope” from Internet access, so that they cannot over time supplant the best effort Internet"
I'd really like to know what the "purpose and scope" of the existing internet are. It sounds to me like a catch-all clause where the purpose and scope of the internet can be retroactively defined to be everything except whatever services providers want to offer separately.
Google said that one of the reasons for Net Neutrality is to encourage broadband providers to expand their infrastructure as opposed to using QOS tactics. Now Google is saying that Verizon needs to be able to run QOS on wireless traffic because... the infrastructure isn't there? Then please answer: Why wouldn't this discourage Verizon from increasing their broadband capacity/infrastructure?
@Josh Highley "politics have to be taken into account"
I'm assuming that by "politics" you mean corporate agendas.
This blog post is as much of a joke as their proposed net "neutrality" pact with Verizon. If you think for a second that Google has done anything other than sold us all out for their own interests....well you're pretty stupid.
So what happens when the traffic from the Wireless goes through a Wired line? Does the wireless trump all, regardless how it gets to its destination? In the near future, almost everything will be wireless and I'm sure most big wired internet providers would rather put up wireless towers then dig up old wires and replace.
It would be nice instead of just throwing around polished nice-sounding phrases, Google came out with a suite of examples. In particular, there are well-known high bandwidth application uses (both specific and general) that could be addressed. Google, you have people writing user scenarios all the time (right?) -- publish some for this joint policy statement. Include the uncomfortable ones. Then we might start taking you seriously. (Oh, and you might consider what will happen when you no longer have the power you currently have. How will you like it when someone puts you on the lower tier?)
For the sake of argument, let's suppose that, in the near future, people shift from wireline to wireless services (just like, in the near past, we all trashed our dial-up modems and started browsing the Internet via broadband connections).
What would this proposal represent, then? It seems to me that, in such a scenario, it'd be nothing but a step backwards for the open Internet.
Now, I'm not qualified to say if this change is really likely to happen (perhaps other people here are). But, if it is the case, then Google and Verizon are paving the road to our hell (and their heaven$) with their "good" intentions.
Wireless bandwidth needs to be commoditized. It needs to be sold per bit quantity (x$ a megabyte), and per speed (x$ a month for a so much Mb/s). Maximum latency might also be factored in, as geolocation. And it doesnt matter wether it is voice, data, sms, in the end it is all bits and bits per second.
This was what the Nexus One was all about: 1st break the business model of telcos so that they supply only the pipes. 2nd: spur competition (with products like google voice and skype) to commoditize bandwidth.
Sadly Google doesn't really believe in this. And the general public is too dumb to understand that there is no free lunch, that a 0$ phone cost a lot more than what it ought to.
I thought Google was the one to achieve this. This excellent article burst my bubble: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2367680,00.asp
I don't see a single thing here that justifies carving up the wireless internet. Highly competitive is too often used a an excuse to implement anti-competitive policies.
Ultimately, we need google. They've done too much for us so far to declare their end after this one indiscretion. But we, as consumers of their products, need to find a way to demonstrate that we will not continue to mindlessly follow their lead if they choose to go where we do not want to.
If anything, maybe this is an opportunity - explore competing services, try yahoo or hotmail again, try zoho instead of google docs, even - gasp! - give cuil a shot again. Maybe consider a Win7 or RIM phone. Even a few percentage point slip in their usage rates will make them think twice.
GOOGLE you claim you are all about openness and doing what is right, and doing things based on THE PEOPLE'S feedback.
Stop trying to debunk what the people are saying and listen... WE ARE PISSED!!
Bottom line is, 2 companies who are already in bed together should not be the sole voice behind regulating the industry that they themselves operate in... the businesses always win and the people lose.
If you have to write a blog post to interpret this for everyone...don't you feel you might have written something wrong in the original proposal?
Everyone loved Google not because of your ability to compromise with large corporations or understand politics, but because you held the same notions on the topic as the rest of us Internet lovers. Being a big corporation yourself, you weren't afraid of standing by your views and help protect the internet the right way.
Compromises, sometimes, go wrong. Google's compromise in this situation, I feel, is wrong.
If you want to start a conversation, start it with what you truly feel is right. You didn't need Verizon to help you with this proposal (though I understand the advantages of their support).
Propose something Google of 2007 would propose. Do not propose something Google/Verizon make a deal on.
Many times there was mention of "wireline Internet traffic". Such thing does not exist separately and is a false concept. There is one and only one "Internet traffic". Now, when a day comes and we have even a single occurrence of Internet traffic which does not touch wired infrastructure, you may have some basis for this distinction.
If Google really wants to support NetNeutrality push should be there NOT for some Govt. agency to regulate it, be it FCC or whichever. Push must be for SIMPLE legislation banning any internet traffic meddling, shaping, altering, falsifying,... by anyone. Govt. and Corporations alike. If it propagates through Internet infrastructure regardless of origin or destination or type - no one can touch it or treat it differently vs. any other packet of information. Who enforces it? Private lawsuits.
"Because wireless networks employ airwaves, rather than wires, and share constrained capacity among many users, these carriers need to manage their networks more actively."
Then they can cap data delivery rather than pushing the for-pay bytes in front of others.
“ Another aspect of the joint proposal would allow broadband providers to offer certain specialized services to customers… the chief challenge is to let consumers benefit from these non-Internet services, without allowing them to impede on the Internet itself.”
The problem is that the providers maintain large chunks of the current architecture (please feel free to correct me on this point). Anyone think they’d continue to invest in it at the same rate rather than let it slowly fall apart as they invest more and more in their higher return walled garden? Show of hands.
*** I think I see Google's underlying play here. Google has a large private internet and wants to sell premium services to fund turning into a huge parallel private internet. This internet will have a ton of leverage with carriers. It will be high security. It will allow high-fidelity streaming across the globe. Thing is, it’ll have a ton of leverage with not just carriers but *everyone*, including rivals in any area Google sees fit to defend or enter. Google trusts itself with that power more than anyone else, or no one. But that’s the line of just about every dictator and monopoly in history.
The FCC would enforce the consumer protection and nondiscrimination requirements through case-by-case adjudication, but would have no rulemaking authority with respect to those provisions
its a real shame this will leave a mark on google forever, as THE only company to truly have the power to fight...and give in after everything.
yeah politics suck, but when your standing up for the little guys who do the actual work and decide to give in because no one else is helping company wise, then youre no better then the guys your fighting against
google just f**ked up seriously, any scheme they come up with now is gonna look like crap and desperation
Having worked at a tier-1 ISP, and having been both a business and consumer customer of ISPs, I would be happy if only the transparency guideline were put into practice.
Right now, it's exceedingly difficult to get accurate pre-sales information from ISPs about what traffic they block and what, if any, traffic shaping they do. Just being able to receive that information before signing a contract would be a significant boon to customers of all stripes.
The wired/wireless distinction seems largely arbitrary, but it is true that there are differences in capital expense and buildout/provisioning strategies between the two.
The FCC and Congress have been dragging their feet on network neutrality for more than five years. Where has all of this outrage, scorn and fire been? When the Comcast ruling came down, where were all of you? I'm troubled by many parts of this proposal, but how do you expect Google to respond when it is clear our government isn't getting the job done. If they kept sitting back the telecoms would have carved up both wired and wireless Internet. At least this is movement and at least this has gotten the discussion going. Instead of leaving nasty comments all over the place, why don't you call your Congress folks and start camping out at the FCC?
Sounds like your typical corporate PR. Speak in plain language and tell the truth. Google may need to change its logo to Greedle. It's a pure sell-out. Shame on you Google.
Google is a sellout, bottom line; you're selling our rights to a free internet to the Tel-coms like Verizon; Your company is starting to lose steam as evidenced by your investments in social media. You're trying to stay relevant by cutting off the chances of another Google coming about; Suffice to say I'm ultimately disappointed in you.
Don't be evil has become Be there, at whatever the cost.
A "this is a big step forward" statement is disingenuous. If a policy gets made then it is what we shall have, forever. And under the proposed policy it will be bad.
Don't try to tell me the wireless market is competitive when prices are going up while services decline.
Google has enjoyed a near monopoly on search-based advertising. Now that they're moving into the wireless market, they're seeing the advantages of siding with another near monopoly, big telecom.
Wow. From looking at these comments I guess there aren't reasonable people on the Internet. Google is proposing a great and realistic proposal here and people are trashing it.
Next we'll all be demanding that we all deserve 1GB/s access to the Interent in our homes for free.
Calm down people! The Internet has been doing pretty good on its own. Its not suddenly going to go to crap when we add protections to most of it.
People left AOL's private network for the public Internet for a reason. The Internet is doing to be just fine, but it could use some regulation were there isn't very much competition like in the wireline arena.
Comparing Google's previous public statements regarding network neutrality and this abomination there is no shadow of a doubt that Google has not only sold out but is engaging in the highest form of falsehood with this "fact" sheet.
The public has put a great deal of trust into google to safeguard and protect our information and interests and google has benefited greatly from that trust, becoming one of the most powerful companies in the world because of it.
Where is that trust when Google is not only so quick and willing to break that trust on something as crucial to our collective futures as network neutrality but then turns around and lies about it?
Where has all of this outrage, scorn and fire been? When the Comcast ruling came down, where were all of you?
we expect comcast to be evil, their an isp, i got throttled, i had to sit there and figure out if my tv shows were being slowed on purpose. comcast represents the just another isp
but google, well, they arent the ones to throttle content, they arent the ones who do stupid things, they were supposed to be the hero of the story, and they flaked
in a world of bad, they were supposed to be the good.
I'm entirely open to hearing more about the technical limitations of current wireless infrastructure that would make non-neutral networks a bad thing (in terms of applications you could run, hold up to America as a leading innovator, that sort of thing.) However, I very strongly object to your claim that the cellular marketplace is competitive.
Providers—AT&T, Verizon, Sprint et al—only compete up front for new customers. The comparative qualities of Verizon and AT&Ts networks is wildly cited as a reason for reduced iPhone uptake, for example. But once they have you, no matter who, you're there for 24 months. Contractually tied in to whatever they do to their network in that—frankly—very long period of time. If that industry is as fast changing as you say (and I believe that it is) that sort of contractual lock in is a massively countenance to consumers being about to respond to unpopular/undesired/etc. network policies of their provider. Were Verizon to announce that they would prioritize Yahoo! Video and YouTube over Vimeo and College Humor, for example, I would be unable to quit in protest. I would be unable as a consumer to act on the alleged competition between these networks.
Maybe they are competitive in the long game. But not in a way that benefits consumers day-to-day, to which net neutrality contributes.
Since customers are to be contractually prevented from using the market to respond to neutrality violating policies, then it is necessary for their neutrality interests to be enforced from above. Granting the networks a pass is unacceptable without direct consumer empowerment as well.
I think we should all get ad-blockers to boycott this corporate greediness. May of you have said you will boycott Google, Gmail, Youtube.. BUT Most of you will find it impractical to do so for any extended period of time.
The best of both worlds is to continue to milk Google (as they have milked us -- we the bloggers, the email users, the people of the internet are the "content" providers, Google simply devalues everything it touches.. from books, to news, to video, etc) If we get enough users to block the annoying all-pervasive pesty "Ads by Google" maybe we can get the message across..
If Google thinks its entitled to make proposals that would slow down the so-called "public" Internet and then make us pay more for services that we have already paid for.. then I no longer see the justification for us to allow ourselves to continue to be inflicted by more and more of Google's avaricious advertisements on the "public" Internets.
The browsing experience is already worsened by all the adwords, adsense, google-analytics, doubleclick, crap .. so on top of inflicting us with your ads, tracking us and collecting our private information to sell out to advertisers and governments.. now you want to tax and toll us all over again?
Google's Achilles heel is adwords. They know what, and that is precisely why they are preemptively trying to control and lock down the entire Internet. We must not allow that to happen! We must stand for something before there is nothing left to stand up for. If we all started using adblockers aggressively and promoting awareness of this, we can boycott this pure evilness and hurt Google where it matters the most - the bottomline wallet. I'm sure your shareholders will be very happy about that?!
Maybe Microsoft can come and save the day by learning a lesson from Verizon/Google and install a default adblocker/ privacy tracking blocker/ etc on IE9 in the name of "privacy" and "freedom" and "openness" and then start debunking criticism with a MYTH/FACT sheet too.. and save the Internet as we know it in the process.. I never thought this day would come when Microsoft is the good guy here.
The argument about consumers having choice in the wireless spectrum is specious at best. Although there are several providers to choose from, the reality is that most consumers will be locked into multi-year plans when purchasing an expensive smartphone - the kind of device that needs unfettered internet access.
"So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service" - so, if you can't afford the premium, your bank account should be at a greater risk of being compromised?
Quote by Josh Highley: Frankly, I'd rather have increased competition in wired broadband instead of gov't regulation (which can be a slippery slope).
You sound like someone who still, after all this time, doesn't understand NET Neutrality. Government regulation is not a slippery slope. Government regulation is necessary.
I think you are failing to understand that the Government regulation is of the ISPs; not the users. Without being regulated and told to share & play nice, the ISPs will cannibalize the internet to suit themselves. For instance, claiming "their" part of the network infrastructure as their own and charging competing ISPs to use it (a fee that will be passed onto the consumer). The extra fees would of course be all under the guise of providing additional "premium services", which is of course complete BS.
In reality, much of the infrastructure was (and still is for rural areas) subsidized by public funding. The internet does NOT belong to the ISPs... at least not completely. It is a public utility and should be treated as such and, just as utility companies are regulated to ensure they adhere to certain standards, so should ISPs.
There has never been neutrality; that is the largest myth. The tempest has always been in a teapot since the only folks with enough clue to make an interpretation of what is 'reasonable' are the technocrats who already make that call.
While I'm here: "Only two choices in wireline" because it costs real money to run physical infrastructure, and *no* end user is willing to pay the actual costs thanks to race-to-the-bottom marketing. This is the real reason most all competitive facilities-based last-mile carriers keel over.
The only thing more disturbing (and disgusting) than Google's shameless, vile dishonesty is the willful blindness (stupidty?) of some of the commenters who believe Google actually has their -- and the Open Internet's -- interest at heart.
++Google's proposal is a suggested framework -- we'll be very lucky if Congress actually adopts this framework in full; after the corporate dollars and lobbyists are finished with actual legislation we will all be yearning for the days of Google's proposal...
++Google's proposal for wired broadband is solid and PRACTICAL -- yes, it would be ideal if the "One and Only" Internet were actually built out everywhere equally with the infrastructure needed to support remote medical imaging, networked education platforms, national security networks, and other such high bandwidth and specialized applications -- but realistically that will not happen; the investment money is not there, and *certainly* not to bring the ENTIRE Internet up to a hardware level required for only a specific set of specialized users. Google's suggested requirement of these services as 'distinguishable in purpose and scope' from the Internet at large, is absolutely key.
++Google's proposal is purely ADDITIVE -- today we have few protections, if any after FCC v. Comcast -- Google's proposal ADDS needed protections and oversight, without creating any precedents that REDUCE protections (i.e. deciding to not subject wireless to this framework's regulations *now* at this moment in time, is NOT enacting a law that forbids such protections *tomorrow* in the future). Years have passed without any Federal progress on this issue -- should we insist on trashing Google's framework and doing nothing because it delays a more robust regulatory framework for wireless? Delays -- not prohibits -- and yes, Google's proposal ADDS more protection/oversight for wireless than exists today.
++Legislation and consumer protections do not appear magically in a void. The public should be grateful that Google is actually addressing this issue -- would you prefer Fox or TimeWarner, or any of the other 'old media' companies deliver their proposals to Congress first? Or perhaps we should just let Congress work this out between the Federal goverment and the 'will of the people,' the citizens of the United States (who are all *so* informed and actively engaged on this issue, or any other)?
Believe me, I am (still) concerned, and I believe the burden of proof for Public Interest will always remain on the corporation. I participated in the "Save the Internet" campaign and wrote Google shortly after the NY Times story broke, but I did not accuse Google of being evil after I'd simply read a news story. I wrote to them to express our serious concerns, and to urge them to speak publicly ASAP about their intentions. I hope the public will seek to learn about this issue, deeply, to guide their convictions.
Our concern and energy needs to be focused on Congress; who will take a purely 'additive' framework and do Who-Knows-What with it. We should be grateful to Google for taking the stance they've outlined, for finding a practical and amenable solution (and communicating openly with the public), and because Google is is pro-actively participating in and advocating for a legislative solution.
I predicted -exactly- this would happen. I was speaking to my boss Simon Davies begin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting just 2 days ago on this issue and said I felt that Google would try to mitigate the backlash of their announcement by saying "Oh but look we are giving the FCC powers they currently don't have!!! At the moment the FCC can't do anything and we can all be really evil!!!!" as a "slight of hand" on the wireless issues. Lo and behold as predicted Google come out and do -exactly- that.
Google this is a complete joke and I will do everything I can to fight this as I am sure many other people will.
This whole regulation issue has now turned upside down. The FCC is the agency that was put in place to regulate the use of the airwaves - a public resource that has limited capacity and must be shared - to make sure the use is fair and in public interest. It is, therefore, FCC's primary mission to regulate the wireless communication and enforce net neutrality principles there. On the other hand, the wired broadband uses cables going over private lands should stay out of reach of FCC, since there is no limited resource to share. Now, how does this proposal fit into this framework?
We've been down this road before, with regulated "common carrier" access to the telephone network and unregulated "information services" access. Guess what: everything that wasn't pure dialtone got defined as "information services", and monopoly power did its thing.
This is a proposal that requires a pro-active, consumer-oriented FCC and a responsive congress to work safely. But in Google's own words, it's being proposed because the FCC and congress haven't been doing the job people want them to do. This is like Countrywide in 2005 proposing a great new set of subprime regulations for the Office of Thrift Supervision to adopt.
Not good enough Google. Wireless is not "competitive" as you say it is. If Comcast annoys me, I can switch to AT&T (if available) without paying hefty termination fees. Can you say the same about the wireless market? Wireless merely has the semblance of competitiveness.
Secondly, power relinquished is never regained. If wireless is allowed to be non-neutral, it will never become neutral again.
This post makes Google sound truly Orwellian. In the same way that the Ministry of Peace dealt with war, Google is taking a blatant reversal of their stance on Net Neutrality, and is framing it as a step forward.
Google, you have lost my trust, and the trust of a lot of other people. If you want that trust back, you will have admit your mistake. Even Steve Jobs ended up admitting the antenna was flawed...
I don't buy it. My opionion of Google has officially changed. Historically, the telecom industry has always managed to reach terms on with proposed 'good faith', then turn around and screw everyone involved. The state of America's networks testify to their present intentions, as does that obscene amounts they charge and their business practices. There is no compromising between two corporations; it's not their job. It is the role of the government to make the rules, not to ask the players to make the rules. I can't believe where this country has gone, and how its citizens routinely buy in to everything foolish. Meet a sugar coated Google.
Just like the Democrats, you compromised too soon. You have to stand your ground until they come to you asking for support, being that you are Google, practically God of the net...you could do this. You compromised too soon, so disappointed. You guys are really good at doing stuff, so you should have put together a crack team to handle intense negotiations.
Did anyone think of what this could do to the wireless market? People may reject wireless outright due to it. I know I had planned to go wireless, but now...eh no thanks. If things get to bad and companies start herding people towards wireless, I'll just go back to dial up. Ya, that serious.
As for verizon, totally disappointed. I used to support them too. If anything, I think THEY should have compromised and lead the way. People would have flocked to them. I was just at the Verizon store before reading this, and looking at their broadband...eh no thanks. After this I realize it isn't worth it.
Why did you even bother posting this ridiculous myth/fact piece? Did you really think users would believe your outrageous lies? You should have simply shut up and not said anything. Do you really expect me to believe that this would be a good thing so my service provider can offer me better specific services? The entire point of the Internet is if I have a heart monitor that talks over WiFi, I shouldn't have to pay my ISP an extra $20/mo to make sure those packets actually arrive at the hospital.
Just go on and keep making your money, you're all greedy and selfish. I suppose Google and Verizon deserve one another. Two greedy companies.
* It all seems that we are going through a "wireless crysis". Hence The ISPs will have neutrality zero in wireless. * ISPs are also given the ability to create neutrality-free wired zones (with the condition that they are used for a purpose and they preserve openness of the 'open internet'). * In exchange we get the gift of the 'open internet' which is exactly what we have now minus the wireless and the services that ISPs will now prefer to put in the neutrality-free zones. * Besides of the 'open internet' we have also earned the hope that one day, when the 'wireless crysis' finally ends, they will give us the gift of the 'open wireless internet' in which we will enjoy all those wonderful things that 'the open internet' has. The ISPs of the future (about five years) will finally have to comply to the rules that we are creating today - they will have to create neutrality-free wireless zones.
Google has certainly not sold out on net neutrality plus they are clearly VERY good negotiators. That Google and Verizon work together on the Android is a mere coincidence.
Negotiating a proposal where net neutrality won't exist for 90% of users within two decades truly is the definition of selling out on advocacy for Net Neutrality.
They can already price bits going up and bits coming down however they want, that is a fundamentally simpler and more direct way to manage traffic issues than any pricing structure this agreement might open up.
What a bunch of BS, I thought google might just be the first large corporation to stick to a truly ethical mission statement throughout it's lifespan, but alas, money and "political realities" (also known as "a voluntary worldview in which we don't make more than tiny sacrifices for the things we believe in") have precipitated this udder capitulation.
For people who don't think this is a capitulation, if your argument for how Neutrality will exist in 20 years for more than a handful of bits is that this will be "revisited" (read: "have both of the gaping loopholes closed") at some non-descript point in the future, I've got some "political realities for you.
If google moves to unify neutrality language for both wireless and wireline tech (including future technology) I will use every product and service they offer. Until then, I'm willing to put up with a lot hassle to avoid them.
Everyone once in a while you get a public figure with balls who throws the rest of his career out the window to push through a positive change that lasts for decades, and occasionally no one even saw it coming. I didn't think Genachowski was that guy, but his response to this proposal put some fire in my belly.
Access to the internet is crucial. Sharing non-genetic information is the only new thing humans bring to this godforsaken planet! Anyone who talks about "political realities" and "mostly neutral" should be shot.
What are sacrifices you have to make in order to have open wired and wireless networks from here to eternity? If you can't come up any that don't wither completely when confronted with the fact that the internet is the most revolutionary development in the only thing that really makes us interesting as a species, you don't have an argument, it really is that simple.
The only thing that makes human being unique on this planet is our ability to pass down non-genetic information.
The question that needs to be asked is this: How much is going to hurt to have net neutrality on all networks? How much truly has to be sacrificed?
If the answer withers when confronted with the fact that this technology is single most revolutionary tool ever devised to advance the one thing that makes us interesting as a species, then you probably shouldn't be leaning on it to support a point in this argument.
The fact is that no one hurting because we have de facto neutrality right now. Telecoms are having some great fiscal quarters.
The benefits of abandoning it are pitifully insignificant compared to possible damage of doing so.
I don't know that I agree with the proposal (haven't spent enough time thinking about it). For those that think that this is selling out somehow...this is the reality of political lobbying. Google just has the fortitude to do it in public (and of course wants us to help them lobby :)).
Most companies do this...you just never hear about it until it is a law.
"Well,the first time we tried to sell out and screw the public over we were caught with our pants down." -Google,Monday
"How dare the unwashed masses resist against us?!" -Google,Tuesday
"So lets try this again, but this time lets try to make the public feel as though they really deserved it." -Google,Wednesday
"So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability – so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet. Some broadband providers already offer these types of services today. The chief challenge is to let consumers benefit from these non-Internet services, without allowing them to impede on the Internet itself." -Google,Thursday
public internet? non-internet services? impede on the internet itself?
Brin and Page have Phd's in Computer Science from Stanford, Schimdt from Berkeley.
"Evil began in a time before recorded history, when magicians made themselves into kings…and gods…using the powers of the dark side of the Force. The weak-minded have ever been ready to obey one who wields great power. Those who learned the powers of the dark side were quick to exploit this weakness—to make war. Again and again the dark side has surged forth, like a storm…devouring whole worlds and entire star systems. Those who mastered dark power became dark power. They unleashed destruction, for no other reason but selfish gain. They despoiled nations…destroyed whole civilizations. Some of them, I am ashamed to say, were Jedi." ―Ood Bnar [Star Wars]
"We did not enter the search business. They entered the phone business. Make no mistake: they want to kill the iPhone. We won't let them [...] This don't be evil mantra? It's bullshit." - Steve Jobs [Apple] on Google, Jan 2010
"Under the spreading chestnut tree I sold you and you sold me—" - George Orwell, 1984
Unfortunately, if the law makers are allowed to decide this on their own, its going to get ugly, AND stupid, and probably never get done at all. Personally, I believe the FCC should reclassify both wired and wireless internet providers as they were, pre-bush era. Telecom common carriers, with certain rules exempted, as is the FCC heads' third option. Also to use the USF funds for broadband, instead of, or at least in addition to, ancient POTS technology.
The internet is enabling the people to have a real voice, not only in America, but across most parts of the world. Its enabling the most intelligent people in the world to solve problems together and bridge gaps never before possible, and do so at an ever faster pace as the technology does. This voice should not be encumbered by various special interests, including shareholders and dinosaur industries and political parties. For as I see it, its the new path to our own evolution and survival, and is much needed, because even our current technology is far too capable of wiping us all out, if left to government leaders and unscrupulous corporations alone.
The reality of our current situation though, at least in the US, is there is only so much space alotted for broadband use in the airwaves. These slices of the spectrum for the public's internet, are very small, and everyone else using spectrum for other purposes wants to keep what they've got, stupid or not. So there's simply not enough room for uninhibited growth of all kinds of possible internet traffic on these airwaves. Unless leaders can take action, and MAKE room for it, some sort of traffic prioritization is going to be necessary. The FCC has a plan to make some room, over a long period of time, but in typical government fashion, its going to take forever. There's LOTS of underutilized spectrum out there, and lots more that could be reclaimed if the current services using them were transformed to on-demand type service the internet is good at providing, instead of simply broadcasting to everyone at once using these valuable spectrum slices. I think, the military's got way too much of it, and could certainly better utilize or transition part of what they have to free up some very good spectrum. There's lots of other places to look, and those in the know, already know some.
However, to reshape the wireless landscape, would cost lots and lots of money. A dramatic redrawing of the airwaves, could be the sort of thing to say, jump start a flailing economy, and provide lots of good technical and manufacturing jobs among others, create demand for all sorts of new services and equipment, and industries even. It could be, something like another internet boom. Imagine if you were to have Google's proposed 1Gbps fiber connection, in your pocket. Available to everyone in America. That would be something, and is certainly possible.
Or, we could just sit on our thumbs, and wait for more industrious countries to pass us by with our own creation. Like it seems were doing now.
So at least Google seems to be helping to progress the discussion, without committing to long term limitations on our freedoms with the internet. And getting them to agree to transparency so we'll at least know how they're doing it, and what they're doing it to, so we can find ways to circumvent it, or at least complain about it. Until these dinosaur industries finally die, or someone motivated enough with enough power is able to really do something about it, or even the FCC is finally able to do it, which is tough, seeing as how its leadership and priorities get changed every so often.
Why are you all surprised. Google is a multi-billion dollar enterprise. The Do No Evil BS ended long ago.
Like any major corporation, Google will do what it thinks is in the best interest of its shareholders.
I just wish they'd come out and be honest about it. Enough with this crap about 'champions of the open Internet.'
Google is a champion of maximizing profitability. Anyone who thought they would be any different, shame on you for being suckered. This is the American way. Always has been, always will be.
Wills, what you say about the need to open up the spectrum is absolutely true, the problem is that the FCC, like it or not, is the body that has the mandate to do it. It's as Churchill said, "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
We need to own up to the fact that when a government body with a clear mandate and clear authority doesn't act in our best interests, it's because we the people didn't make it happen. Comments like "in typical government fashion" abdicate our responsibility to take an active role in our own governance.
Game theory dictates that in a market with only a few players controlling that vast majority of the market, competition grinds to a halt and they tend to raise or lower their rates in tandem. This is modern definition of "Oligopoly" that nearly all economists accept.
This proposal pushes us toward less competition, not more. By exempting wireless and future wired technology, google ensures that no startup will ever be able to provide as high a quality of service as a youtube or a hulu. Not because of any competence they possess, but because the resources they were willing to throw at it politically outmatched the resources the other 300 million of us were willing throw at it.
Telecommunications innovation flourished more here under common carrier regulation than anywhere else in the world. The sacrifices needed to maintain open networks are not that great. Prioritizing traffic (like VOIP or Medical comm.) is not a violation, only prioritizing one provider over another.
Imagine for a second if every startup for a data-heavy service in the world had neutral access to the chinese or the EU consumer market, but was forced to partner with a loaded american firm to get access to the same speed as it's competitors in the US market...
What do you think this does to market choice in the US?
Anyone who wants to support honestly free-market politicians, this is a great litmus test for you... If you're into that sort of thing.
Sorry Chris. It's not for you to say whether you sold out or not.
There's many reasonable people who view the famous paragraph #5 as the proof.
You may want to read it again. There's an absolute lack of concordance between that text and the stated goals Google always stood for.
If you stand for something different now, that's fine, but it's an insult to the collective intelligence of your customers and developer community to tell them that it's them who are wrong.
It's not for you to say whether the decision you took is what's best for us.
I don't buy it. Your explanations are full of fancy wording and feel good verbiage but underneath it the concessions and proposals made in "the spirit of compromise" compromise the idea of net neutrality itself.
I thought Google - who appeared to be one of the lone voices with a big audience in this debate - actually supported those of us who don't have the platform of a corporation to speak from. I was absolutely wrong, like you are in compromising with Verizon, AT&T or whoever else demands concessions and compromise to the idea that the internet should be open and free.
So whatever, sell out if you want to. I won't stop using your services, but I'm pissed off. I thought you guys were above this kind of bullshit. Way to be another shill. What happened to "Don't Be Evil?"
This will be the last post from my account, beyond this I will be switching search providers to duckduckgo, and email providers to hushmail. I'll be dumping my 2200 shares of google, They're up 7.60 from where I bought them, so it's both a profit to me, and a fuck you to you.
How can you continue to attempt to tell people that this is a 'good' idea, for our protection? Why not just sign into a deal that says "This is good for our bottom line, fuck you."
I'll be taking my 10,000 searches a year and my business email elsewhere.
I'd like whoever, from Google, is going to read these comments to take a look at an article hosted on your own domain. I have been a long time supporter of Google, using gmail, search, voice, and other services. Your credibility has dropped in my eyes for even considering this.
It is very disappointing to see Google "compromising" on behalf of all the netizens in a closed door meeting and coming up with a proposal. I hope they don't soon "compromise" on all the user data they have been collecting lately.
Anything less than 100% net neutrality is not acceptable. We don't see things like freedom of the press done halfway-- freedom is meaningless if it is compromised at all.
Any system put in place to control traffic types or content, even if they start out as simple, seemingly harmless compromises, will ultimately ruin net neutrality. Anything past the statement "All web content from all sources must be treated equally," will allow those with interest to manipulate the internet toward their own aims.
Government: We'll push internet service to nationwide availability, but you won't like the watered down result compared to people who can afford last mile relay service from satellite, or people who in cities.
Corporations: Our real money is made off of business access. We build where the business is, and in this recession, we're through with building. We'll upgrade existing service to fiber, but if we haven't got to you yet, we're not going to get to you. If you don't like it, go die in a fire. Nobody cares.
Wireless companies: We can't handle all of this wireless broadband for the entire country.
AT&T: iPhone 3G. Remember that fiasco? People complaining about dropped calls and data loss?
Wireless companies: Yeah, seriously. We can't do the same service that wired service can. Why doesn't anyone believe us?
Customers: We just want to use the internet the way it is. The government and corporate america disagree, so goodbye internet.
"give the FCC the ability to preserve the open Internet through enforceable rules on broadband providers." .
I do not understand this preserve the open through enforceable rules. The internet is already open. All you have to do is leave it as it is. NO enforceable rules are required for anyone to leave it open.
Well, this turn of events really made me consider boycotting all google products.
This BS "fact" sheet that tries to insult my intelligence just made the decision for me. I will no longer use chrome, I will no longer use gmail, I will no longer use your search, I will make sure I NEVER click on a google ad.
I would have respected your position allot more if you would have been honest, this is about GREED pure and simple.
This is the worst thing that you could do to the medium that made you guys big. I really really can not believe that you are the ones to start it, i would not have been surprised if Verizon did something like this on their own but you guys? Come on, "do no evil",think about that for a while, don't just become another microsoft, another big rich company, only driven by profit, do something good and stop this madness. I don't want to tell my future children about the "old internet" when it was a zone of freedom, free speech and unlimited potential for good, don't be the company to start it's end, be the one that will be remembered as being one of the amazing exceptions to the sad rule that power corrupts.
by the way i switched ton bing for my searches i cannot support a company with this kind of policy that sells put everything that made them one of the big players.
I think I'd like to bring a different angle to the discussion. Here are the facts: I already pay an ISP to get access to the internet. When I pay for this service, I am paying for a connection with a given bandwidth (call it 5 mpbs). If this is the speed that has been advertised to me, then this is the speed that I am entitled to. In this regard, you should not have any right to selectively buffer the speeds of the content which I access. ISPs have posed that they built the infrastructure, the networks, and therefore should be allowed to do as they choose. However, they seem to have overlooked numerous government subsidies including billions upon billions which were meant to install fiber-optic connections in the home, which they quietly pocketed (admittedly, sources needed). If a fiber network had been installed then likely there would be much less squabbling over bandwidth. However, given google's own language, it is in every ISPs interest to commoditize bandwidth, or in other words create scarcity.
Next, I agree with Google in that there is very little competition in terms of wireline ISPs (in CA it's Comcast or AT&T), but I scoff at the idea that there is competition among wireless carriers. Net-neutrality might be a non-issue if there were legitimate competition among wireless providers, because you could choose an ISP who respected you as a consumer, but this is just not the case. A handful of providers have obscene control over the networks and as somebody mentioned earlier, lock in their customers using service contracts. This has the profound effect of stifling competition and reactions to abusive policies.
Recapilating again, someone mentioned that Google will set an industry precedent for the rest of the internet titans to follow. As such, it has grossly capitulated on the internet technology that matters: wireless. Google has correctly recognized wireless is the future of the internet, and has effectively side-stepped the matter and proposed a paradigm which grants consumers protection on soon-to-be deprecated wireline technology. Thanks. For this reason, no Google: no compromises. See you bright and early at the Googleplex.
The damage is done. It doesn't matter what happens Google will be seen as the ones who sold out on Net Neutrality.
Wired and wireless access aren't different at all. Just because Google wants to move into wireless doesn't excuse the deliberate and willful attempt at taking a dump on Net Neutrality.
I think big companies always end up going down the greedy path... and I was wondering when Google was going to prove that theory. That day has come. Thanks a lot.
I'm sorry, but this is clearly damage control and an obvious attempt at spinning the story.
If the PR team for Google is truly interested in turning this negative reaction around, go back to the whiteboard and submit a policy that protects the customer and has the customer needs in mind. We want net neutrality across the board, regardless of the medium.
Don't use politics to create more revenue. Satisfy your customer and the revenue will increase.
This makes me so sad. I really did trust Google before this. It really breaks my heart to see Google do this, and it will inform my decisions of whether or not to trust them in the future. Very sad.
So sad. There are principles in this world that one should stand for regardless of "political realities".
The Obama administration's FCC has been staunchly in favor of full net neutrality partly because a few large businesses like Google stood with them. Now Google has backed off to make more money and in the end we all get screwed.
as said in comments above, the future of the net is though the use of wireless. looks like you're putting in place a structure to hand the internet over to corporations. of course in your description it all sounds so innocent, but corps care about one thing only; profits. if there's money to be made with tiered pricing, it will happen. and what's worse, maybe these companies can start deciding what i can and can't do with their service.
the politicians who are supposed to be looking out for us (dems and repubs) are bought and sold by the dozen. this is a scary proposition.
I believe that Google and Verizon are doing more work for our society then our government (USA) has done for us in the past decade. As a soldier, I would love to come work for Google when I leave the military, because I feel like I would be doing more for my country with them (Google) then I am doing under this administration.
Unless something better comes along, I'll vote for this proposal everyday.
Please. This claim that wireless providers need to manage their networks? There is an *extremely* easy way for them to do that: charge a flat fee per megabyte. Done. Anything else is just a form of price discrimination. And one notes that despite all this great "competition" none of the wireless providers takes the route I just gave--each and every one of them charges an extra fee for tethering, etc. In my opinion that alone should be illegal, and it's enough to show that it's not a truly competitive market.
The funny thing is that we are not having any problems with net neutrality or anything like it. I mean, look, I doubt that ISP's are slowing even 1% of traffic! Perhaps some P2P traffic, but it still moves just fine. This is just smoke and mirrors. Google, I have been with you from the start. Now I can only hope a new company emerges to take your place. I know some people like to be negative, in their responses, to everything. I am not. But this is very disappointing. Google has been a freedom advocate on the net for some time now. Apparently, those days are over.
Google, I'm disappointed. A neutral, open Internet is a big reason you guys were able to get where you are, and now you want to deny it to the next little guy who comes along with a better way of doing things. You owe the Internet better than that.
Government and corporate interests will always pervert whatever way NN legislation goes, so why does Google feels it's really necessary to compromise the belief that information wants to be free, and the 'do no evil' mantra? Put forth something on your own that doesn't compromise those ideas, and find something that will be perverted anyway, or put out a compromise, and find it perverted even more, into something that will screw over consumers at the benefit of the industry.
Here is a simple legislative framework: "Every packet should be treated equally. If independent analyst, programmers, etc. can provide proof that an ISP is discriminating between packets, then this ISP should be fined 10% of their net worth. If they repeat the offense, then they should have their license revoked. Period." Why do we make this more complicated?
"But given political realities, this particular issue has been intractable in Washington for several years now. At this time there are no enforceable protections ..."
Google: The enforceable protections are in the FCC mandate of "in the public interest." Your proposal for a two tiered internet with neutrality on one tier and preferred delivery speeds to the highest bidder on the other create a situation where the next two guys in the garage have to wait until corporate capitalization blesses them with the ability to play in the fast lane. Sorry, but that's not in the public interest, not in the spirit of your past partnerships, and comes awfully close to doing evil. Even if none of us knows what the future of the internet, your current proposal and this last post are highly cynical.
I'm confused how Google (and Googlers) helped Barack get into office and Barack appointed people to help Google with this issue and all Google can say is... "There is not enough traction..."
When will there be traction? You're telling me with an FCC who has been vocally advocating net neutrality, a democratic house, senate, and white house that you can't get any traction in DC?
You're telling me Google, who probably has Obama on speed dial, can't get him to at least sign an executive order (which is meaningless, but shows intent) to have the internet be neutral for all business and all consumers (big and small, rich and poor)?
It's not politics, just greed. There's only one Internet. Period. One Net Neutrality. Google has sold out and is pursuing its own interest in this matter. No amount of carefully written PR can distort this simple reality.
I will personally get rid of all Google services that I am currently using and will encourage everyone I know to follow the suit. We need to send a message to these corporate talking heads! It's the future of the Internet that is at stake and too few realize the consequences of this pact between Google/Verizon.
At least Facebook is onboard with REAL NET NEUTRALITY even if they're pursuing their own business interests.
Truly a sad day for web community when one of its darlings is going against its own motto. Google, YOU HAVE OFFICIALLY BECOME EVIL!
The price for freedom is dealing with the consequences of that freedom. Without regulation we will get abuse but with regulation we are identifying the entities that will abuse us. I do not trust the governmental regulation because they don't have the specialized knowledge necessary to effectively regulate. I don't trust corporate regulation because they are in it for the money not the people. I don't trust social regulation because people are dumb, panicky, animals. No regulation; we will deal with the abusers when they occur.
"It’s true that Google previously has advocated for certain openness" You just admitted The Treason! . This is the worse kind of backstabbing Google. See you in Bing and old reliable windows mobile 6.x. At least Microsoft has better ethics. No more clicks in your ads either.
We all know that this is the end of a beautiful thing. Whether it is the beginning of another, remains to be seen. The American tax dollar created this highway, the commercial dollar improved it. We have been horribly abused by greed and averice along the way. The legal arguments are sound, no doubt. What good old throat cutting capitalist would not just bend over and pick up a dollar off of the road? This is about higher values than cash. This is about doing what is right. It's about freedom of speech for everyone. The rich and the poor. Society lives here and no one business entity or industry has the right to twist it their way. Total packet equality is a standard that we change at our peril. Big business went ahead and disseminated my personal information without my permission, without me understanding the ramifications of that violation. They built an Empire on my tax money. Now they are going to take something else away. What might that be? Now i must go identify myself to the invisible powers so I can share my thoughts with you.
Google: You're a very large company with a lot of resources and political power. Why are you not fighting for REAL net neutrality?
The airwaves are public space just as a lot of the wired lines that ISPs use are public because they were built with taxpayer money. If a company wants to use license the use of certain radio frequencies, they should have to play by the rules. If they can't handle a competitive environment, then they can get out of this business.
There should be no exceptions either. Allowing an ISP to throttle certain services in the name of trying to stop copyright infringement just opens up a loophole for the ISPs to use. Certainly an ISP will use this loophole to throttle any traffic they don't like, regardless if copyright infringement is involved.
These lines were laid and created with taxpayer money. Shouldn't the ISPs be regulated like the telcos and forced to treat all traffic as equal?
Don't sell out your principles Google, you're better than this. Take a stand and refuse to compromise. You're losing credibility with the people that care about this issue.
Myth: This post dcounters the EFF's points. Fact: Point for point, the EFF's criticism of this policy proposal stand. I seems to me you most often specifically call it's criticism a myth in the first point, and then turn around and clarify in the fact portion that they're right on target.
Gotta love the doomsday scenarios. Stop waving your hands for a second and take the proposal into consideration from the perspective of the content and access providers. I, for one, do not wish to have spam prioritized equally with my email or youtube on my mobile device.
Every step of the way google clearly advocates FCC to monitor any and all wireless access priority changes, and furthermore advocates granting them explicit authority to change those priorities to protect consumers.
Google is proposing something that is *realistic* in the face of a debate that is going nowhere.
Do I believe they can "do no evil?" No. Is this the end of all internet as we know it? Not even close. It's a pragmatic compromise based on the very real current limitations of wireless, with caveats to keep checks in place.
A perfectly good start to a solution, and an invitation of collaboration for others. What more do you vampires want?
Google, you stated that your joint press release with Version was "only the beginning of the discussion".
It's not your place, nor Verizon's nor any commercial entity's, to claim that you represent the public interest in any discussion of public policy.
In short, shut up, sit down and think about what you can do to earn back some of the good will you squandered in the past few days with your ill-considered pandering.
The old Google would have been horrified to have their opinions lauded by oligopolies like Verizon and AT&T.
Maybe your definition of 'selling out' is different from mine.
Talking the talk but not walking the walk. Comes down to money. Why a public company can't be 'good' - sorta creates a conflict of interest doesn't it?
I am disappointed.
See a future where I can only watch youtube on Verizon and Update my Yahoo Fantasy sports on T-Mobile.
A firm that truly believed in Net Neutrality would push the agenda forward regardless of the "political realities" (namely the corruption of the government which exists at all levels and the ignorance of the population). Likewise, saying that the wireless market is not as competitive as this post would imply either and it ignores the fact that net neutrality should be enforced regardless of how competitive a market is or is not.
Perhaps this agreement will not set the law, but you cannot deny that this has set a dangerous precedent and that it may heavily influence any laws passed by the US Congress.
I have had great respect for Google in that past as a company that claimed to be a firm that stood for profit with principle, that advocated the "don't be evil" principle, and that behaved unlike the typical behaviour of other firms. Increasingly, I wonder if my respect has been misplaced and that Google is just another corporation.
Beyond that, look at the comments here. Google's image is being damaged to many people here. Your honesty, your integrity, and your credibility as a firm, are now questionable rather than credible. This deal with Verizon may seem great in the short run for Google, but one wonders what could happen in the long run.
In my opinion, Google just became evil. Anything but wide-open, unregulated Internet promises hordes of bean counters, lawyers, and spin doctors who will wring the life out of the Internet as we know it.
Expect this signpost:
"All traffic is equal. Some traffic is more equal than other."
Google, we are disappointed in you. The Google of 2007 would not approve either. This proposal is about making money.
The internet we use today, which company came up with email? Which telco or cable company came up with http or the web browser?
A neutral network allowed individuals to come up with amazing technology. This network you are advocating for will allow consumers to buy whatever service their providers choose to offer. The public internet will suffer because access to the private services will be leveraged over public services. The app-ization of what should be browser access on mobile devices will further segregate content.
As a company that has benefited from open source technologies and neutral network access, you are creating a climate where the next Google will be impossible. I consider that "evil". Worthy of Microsoft, Verizon and Comcast but not the company I thought Google was.
Stolen without remorse from an insightful Slashdot comment:
MYTH: Google has gone evil. FACT: It's true that Google has previously advocated for less evil. However in the spirit of unbridled greed, we have agreed to a proposal that is, in fact, quite evil, while Congress gives us tips on how to do it. Why? First, being good is pretty darn expensive. Second, because we have found that most people simply didn't know or care that we were being good. And third, because being evil is beginning to take off as a business model in this space.
The only saving grace here may be the fact that While this is not great at all it doesn't allow anything that isn't already legal.
Right now there is nothing stopping the enactment of a "Private" Internet in either domain.
But, Ultimately this is a failure on Google's part to be the Advocate we expect. We don't care about compromise , so many people compromise. we need stalwart advocates on our side.
A Large corporation in bed with another corporation trying to ensure it's consumers that their ideals do not outweigh their bottom line.
Just come out and say it. You sold out for the sake of furthering your competitive ground so that you can bring better products to your consumer. Instead of hiding behind mantra's like "don't be evil".
This is all about the future and the $$$ making possibilities for Google. Come on people, Google is a business, which if I am not mistaken, makes a whole bunch of money. They are setting theirselves up for some major long term profits (and possibly world domination).
What's amazing about all of these comments is that people seem to think that somehow Google can dictate what happens next.
This was just a _proposal_; at the end of the day, it's Congress which passes the laws. Why does it have to be Congress? Because after FCC v. Comcast, the FCC has been stripped of the power to enforce any net neutrality.
What people are forgetting is that if AT&T had their way, there would be no net neutrality at all --- not for wired internet, not for wireless internet --- AT&T wants to be able to charge whatever it can get people to pay for arbitrary classes of Internet service levels and protocols to maximize its profit.
Politics is all about the art of the possible. Quite frankly, given the power of the telecom lobbyists, there is no guarantee even Google and Verizon's compromise is likely to be accepted by Congress. Congress could very well pass a law which says, "AT&T, go to town!"
How can a company be evil just for suggesting something which is better than the status quo, even if it isn't perfection?
A true compromise would be to regulate it less than hardline connections. Like the EPA has tiers of engine emission regulations (passenger car, semi-trucks, off highway industrial equipment). These have different emissions controls, the higher the volume, the tighter the control. As time goes on, they begin squeezing even tighter, so that heavy duty trucks have near zero emissions, and industrial equipment has about the same emissions as the trucks did 5 years ago.
So come down hard on the wired internet, and allow the wireless networks to come up to speed, BUT STILL be under the FCC's thumb, albeit lightly at first, but harder as more people start using it.
This vile spin that Google is trying to shill us makes me sick, it makes me second guess if I want to get a Droid phone next year or not.
Dearest Google, You were my hero. You were the good guys, the ones that could be big and not bad. You brought us open source phones and stood up to the Chinese government when they censored internet content.
What happened? How could you do this to us?
You forfeit net neutrality for wireless networks. Not too long from now the wireless internet may constitute the majority of the internet. You prescribe a $2 million fine for breaking these rules, but that's a rounding error on Verizon's balance sheet.
Google is telling us that this was the best deal they could get, so they took it. But maybe they were second-guessing, and underestimating, the degree to which the public would fight with them for this issue, then. They shouldn't have done this in a back room without soliciting public input.
They also point out that this proposal does not eliminate any existing protections, but just nails down the wired Internet protections in a way that they were not nailed down before.
That is formally true. But, you have to believe that there's a reason that the wireless Internet is not nailed down in this proposal. Once you have a proposal, then what's left out is also part of the package. Sins of omission become de facto sins of commission.
The argument about specialized services is also formally true; they cannot duplicate services that are on the wired Internet. But what if 90 percent of the public likes the new services and spends most of its time using them? Even if the old Internet is still working fine, it may languish under those conditions, and the new services will no longer be democratically available to all content providers.
For example, what if there is a new spontaneous video conferencing service that allows hundreds of people to spontaneously swarm into a conference room on a social networking site to have a virtual meeting about any topic of interest, and see one another as they speak? And say that democracynow.org can't afford the bandwidth for that, but CNN can? Won't that damage our democracy?
No, this is a bad arrangement. And yes, we should be lobbying government now to take this proposal two steps further to nail down the wireless and future Net.
An Internet divided against itself cannot stand. And we won't stand for it, either.
Google needs to summarize their position; but they haven't, so I will try.
It seems to me, they're trying to say "wireline Internet should be forcibly open, and the FCC and Congress should establish regulations to ensure it; but we think industry competition in the wireless market is sufficient to protect neutrality in that space, at least for now."
I disagree with the conclusion, but I don't think it's unreasonable or evil.
The wireless exemptions are there because Verizon (and all the other wireless providers) have no clue how to be competitive other than by offering exclusives in the form of Verizon-only phones or Verizon-only content services. If you could buy any phone, put it on any network and get content from anyone, they'd be screwed, because then they'd have to actually compete by having the best network and/or best customer service, and both of those things cut into the bottom line. Oh, the humanity.
Net Neutrality allowed Google to compete on a leveled playing field against the incumbents in the early 2000's(Yahoo!, Altavista, etc.) and beat them based on innovation.
Now winners on the wireless Internet will be determined by the amount of money paid to the network operators and not the level of innovation.
It seems that Google is turning into the new Microsoft.
You know that scene in Animal Farm where the pigs change the sign from "four legs good, two legs bad" to "four legs good, two legs better"? This is that scene, and Google are the pigs.
Oh goodie, another dose of Google explaining how they know best, and we should all just shut up and take it.
Get over yourself, Google. You were the hotness for awhile, but your time in the sun is coming to an end. You got too big, too rich, and too egotistical.
You sold out to Verizon, and in the process, you spit all over every user who has ever used any of your services.
May your death as a company come swiftly, so we don't have to put up with your BS backroom deals much longer.
MYTH: Google has gone evil. FACT: It's true that Google has previously advocated for less evil. However in the spirit of unbridled greed, we have agreed to a proposal that is, in fact, quite evil, while Congress gives us tips on how to do it. Why? First, being good is pretty darn expensive. Second, because we have found that most people simply didn't know or care that we were being good. And third, because being evil is beginning to take off as a business model in this space.
Google, I really thought you would stand up for network neutrality. You did sell out, you compromised. It's sad, but true. There is nothing written in stone. You have the chance to have network neutrality written into law, but you sleep with the devil instead to line your pockets. Thanks for all your help.
Wow, F*^k you Google and Verizon. I can't imagine a more terrible idea than allowing two mega corporations to propose legislation the basically benefits themselves. It isn't even a parlay for other telecoms, it's just Google and Verizon giving themselves reach arounds. We are all to blame, allowing these consolidated monopolies to develop online. Everything written here will be twisted or totally reagaped. You can't trust a corporation at all. They admit in the first paragraph, this isn't a perfect idea. Fine, then don't propose it until it is. What a bunch of douchbags.
Disappointing, but not surprising. Say goodbye to innovation and hello to commercialization. Where should I send the buck to in order to see a wiki article? Or, should I just post my CC number here and let the world start charging for my merely existing?
When Microsoft started being evil their reputation was gone in 3 years.. FOR EVER. No way back anymore out of the gutter.
Google just turned evil and is cashing out, no matter how you spin it. This keeps growing. It's time to fire Eric, listen to Sergei and put him in charge and repent.
I have switched my search over to Bing (and was pleasantly surprised) and will stay there until that happens.
Google's popularity is aided immensely by the feel-good approach they use to avoid being the bloodsucking corporation that everyone hates. This is the turning point where Google goes from "charging what is necessary to be a business" to "screwing consumers until they reach the maximum profit point on the curve between customers leaving from hatred and those remaining paying enough to cover the losses". I'm disappointed, but not surprised.
Fact: Google sold out, this blog post proves it.
ReplyDeletePeople are failing to realize the political realities we live in. This proposal has a realistic chance of succeeding. Is it perfect? No, and Google admits that -- again, politics have to be taken into account. I also agree with leaving out wireless broadband. At the moment, wireless just doesn't have the bandwidth to support everything. I think wireless competition will keep it mostly neutral anyway. Frankly, I'd rather have increased competition in wired broadband instead of gov't regulation (which can be a slippery slope). In the meantime, a compromise is the only realistic way to make progress.
ReplyDeleteEt tu brute?
ReplyDeletethank you Google, for helping to clean up all the mess around this. I'll continue to do my best to help people realize that Google is still the good guy in this fight, but this post really helps.
ReplyDelete^ Josh Highley
ReplyDelete"mostly neutral"
- Huh? Is this like "kinda pregnant"?
"instead of gov't regulation (which can be a slippery slope)"
- Are we tea-partying now? Slippery slope to what - fairness?
Fact: as the post itself says, GOOG has compromised its advocacy of net neutrality safeguards. Period. Nuff said. Not the GOOG of 2007.
ReplyDeleteGoogle, when most broadband is wireless, then what? No net neutrality?
ReplyDeleteGoogle sold out, plain and simple. So more for "Don't be evil." Time to switch my default search provider in my browser to Bing...
ReplyDeleteBy creating an alliance with Verizon you created a precedent. Now when others start doing the same they will point to Google and Verizon, "they've done it, we're just following their lead, shut up and take it?" The fact is that right now we are more neutral than we'll be in the future, and this pact legitimizes the less neutral future. I've lost a sizable chunk of my respect for this company.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with this. I don't see why wireless needs it's own rules for access. Sure there is less bandwidth, but I'd much rather see pricing changes, or some other solution to combat this, rather then limiting areas of the internet. If people want to download torrents over wireless that is fine, just charge them accordingly. If they are happy to pay $200 a month to do it then take their money and build up your network to support it.
ReplyDeleteAh, damage control.
ReplyDelete"If adopted, this proposal would for the first time give the FCC the ability to preserve the open Internet through enforceable rules on broadband providers."
ReplyDeleteThis is like the founders excluding free press and boasting about it.
Saying *at all* that wired and wireless are to be treated differently as regards the proposal is 100% exemplary of why a clear line needs to be drawn for Net Neutrality.
A relevant line from the US Constitutional debates: "An imperfect enumeration renders the rights of the people incomplete." -James Wilson (paraphrased)
By "mostly neutral" I meant minimal traffic shaping. Yeah, I guess the term I used is a little like "kinda pregnant" but I think you get the point.
ReplyDeleteAlso, nothing says that wireless network neutrality can't be revisited in the future. This proposal isn't meant to be the final word.
I don't understand why people have such a problem with Google and Verizon working together on this proposal. Google provides content, and Verizon delivers it -- network neutrality affects both sides and a compromise requires both sides to work together. People disagree with my comment about new regulation being a slippery slope, but then suggest Google and Verizon working together is just that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5C-cqw2s00&feature=related
ReplyDeleteLike the post says...its a start of a discussion. This proposal is not the law, if you don't like it or agree with it, then make constructive criticisms and suggest better ideas. It makes no sense to make comments like "Google sold us out. I'm going to Bing!"...BTW, I'm sure BING owners aren't synonymous with fairness and open either. If I were to pick sides, I'd still go with Google. I didn't like some points of this proposal, but I'm not quitting google because of it. It takes courage to take a side with an issue like this, stop being like the tea-party idiots, and provide better ideas, instead of advocating Google lynchings. That's why nothing ever gets done in America. Everybody's ready to blame, and start flame wars, instead of helping. Sheesh!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5C-cqw2s00&feature=related
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteReally bad excuses, my friends. In the past Google WAS one of the champions of net neutrality. But now it is over.
ReplyDeleteNow, Google is clearly against net neutrality, and that is pretty clear with this post. Your words are full of bad excuses, the same that the ISP are using to fight against net neutrality.
By the way, if the political situation is bad, it is the momento to fight, not to surrender.
So, yes, Google sold out. :(
Yeah, the proposal is the "beginning of the discussion."
ReplyDeleteDo you seriously expect the final legislative product to move *toward* neutrality? Expect more compromises. When the corporate champion of net neutrality turns out to be completely spineless, it's a bad omen.
I'm profoundly disappointed in Google.
will you please stop saying 'the public internet.' you're creating new, nastily useful semantics in order to distort our basic understanding of what the internet is. there is no 'public internet' like some rundown municipal library - there is the internet. And Google's don't be evil codswallop is getting harder to swallow with each passing day.
ReplyDeleteGoogle's position here is motivated by gross self interest. They are getting into bed with verizon, because they think, strategically, that they have to be in bed with verizon. this gets them in bed with verizon.
they are throwing the consumer, and some pretty hard won tenets of the internet under the bus in the process.
PR hot air in no way alters that fact.
So, if this proposal exists because telcos need to handle massive mobile data consumption, why doesn't google help them get a wider wireless spectrum or whatever they need instead of proposing this controversial measure ?
ReplyDeleteRestrictive internet access for mobile users it's not only unethical, it will confuse users, and set the foundation for unfair competition.
This policy not only will affect USA, it will influence many other nations across the globe, and as the leading internet company it's your responsability to set the example.
This is why as a user of Android and almost every google service... I hope you review your stance on the matter.
DuckDuckGo FTW
ReplyDeleteSo you don't like the proposal...Let's hear your suggestions? If you were asked to implement 'net neutrality' how would you do it? Let's hear the reasonable ideas you have that doesn't force someone to do something? enough of this, I'm quitting google, because its being "Evil" bullshit! Let me see your ideas and let's hear everyone else shoot holes in your theories.
ReplyDeleteIt's obvious what's going on here. To protect its monopolies, Google wants AT LEAST the constraints laid out in this policy proposal, but would have no trouble with more. So, it is pushing for these, while the lobbying groups to which it gives so much money are crying, "Sellout!" and pushing for yet more onerous regulations. So, if government listens EITHER to this proposal or to that of the lobbyists, Google wins. Google only loses -- by remaining susceptible to new competitors -- if government keeps its hands off the Internet.
ReplyDeleteOh, and the PEOPLE only win if the government ignores both Google and the lobbying groups it pays so handsomely and declines to regulate.
ReplyDelete"FACT: Another aspect of the joint proposal would allow broadband providers to offer certain specialized services to customers, services which are not part of the Internet. So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability"
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but this is exactly what should never happen. Basically, this opens it up for "Oh, you like to play MMOs? We have this service that gives you great speed for Warcraft for just $10 more!" Where they're limiting the speed on the base package.
Rinse and repeat for any bandwidth-intensive task. Now, I'm sure someone will chim in with "But I'm sure that your base internet subscription price will decrease!" to which I say BULLSH*T. I've never seen any service or product drop its base price when it shifts features out to additional serivce tiers. Cable's never done it. My phone service sure as heck hasn't. This is just going to allow for an additional squeeze on consumers.
"But given political realities, this particular issue has been intractable in Washington for several years now" quitters. sad times.
ReplyDeleteMany of the Facts you posted are not in direct contradiction with the so-called Myths; see your "fact" "myth" analysis on wireless for example.
ReplyDeleteNot a great argument.
Dear Google,
ReplyDeleteI know you didn't make a 180 deg turn into Evil. You've made a compromise.
Unfortunately, you are expected not to make such compromises. You're expected to loose money, if it takes it, if it helps the general public or internet consumers.
I used to dream one of my projects will be acquired by Google - that I'll work for Google. But I don't like you anymore.
You might not be plain evil, but now you're just like everyone else.
Is it just me or all of the FACT sections supporting the MYTHs.
ReplyDeleteDon't be evil is now Don't worry about it.
ReplyDelete"these services must be “distinguishable in purpose and scope” from Internet access, so that they cannot over time supplant the best effort Internet"
ReplyDeleteI'd really like to know what the "purpose and scope" of the existing internet are. It sounds to me like a catch-all clause where the purpose and scope of the internet can be retroactively defined to be everything except whatever services providers want to offer separately.
Google said that one of the reasons for Net Neutrality is to encourage broadband providers to expand their infrastructure as opposed to using QOS tactics. Now Google is saying that Verizon needs to be able to run QOS on wireless traffic because... the infrastructure isn't there? Then please answer: Why wouldn't this discourage Verizon from increasing their broadband capacity/infrastructure?
ReplyDelete@Josh Highley "politics have to be taken into account"
ReplyDeleteI'm assuming that by "politics" you mean corporate agendas.
This blog post is as much of a joke as their proposed net "neutrality" pact with Verizon. If you think for a second that Google has done anything other than sold us all out for their own interests....well you're pretty stupid.
So what happens when the traffic from the Wireless goes through a Wired line? Does the wireless trump all, regardless how it gets to its destination?
ReplyDeleteIn the near future, almost everything will be wireless and I'm sure most big wired internet providers would rather put up wireless towers then dig up old wires and replace.
It would be nice instead of just throwing around polished nice-sounding phrases, Google came out with a suite of examples. In particular, there are well-known high bandwidth application uses (both specific and general) that could be addressed. Google, you have people writing user scenarios all the time (right?) -- publish some for this joint policy statement. Include the uncomfortable ones. Then we might start taking you seriously. (Oh, and you might consider what will happen when you no longer have the power you currently have. How will you like it when someone puts you on the lower tier?)
ReplyDeleteFact: Google sold out, this blog post proves it.
ReplyDeleteWhat Tuta said. Google has sold out, they are in bed with Verizon. Microsoft may be more end user friendly now. Sad.
ReplyDeleteFor the sake of argument, let's suppose that, in the near future, people shift from wireline to wireless services (just like, in the near past, we all trashed our dial-up modems and started browsing the Internet via broadband connections).
ReplyDeleteWhat would this proposal represent, then? It seems to me that, in such a scenario, it'd be nothing but a step backwards for the open Internet.
Now, I'm not qualified to say if this change is really likely to happen (perhaps other people here are). But, if it is the case, then Google and Verizon are paving the road to our hell (and their heaven$) with their "good" intentions.
Wireless bandwidth needs to be commoditized. It needs to be sold per bit quantity (x$ a megabyte), and per speed (x$ a month for a so much Mb/s). Maximum latency might also be factored in, as geolocation. And it doesnt matter wether it is voice, data, sms, in the end it is all bits and bits per second.
ReplyDeleteThis was what the Nexus One was all about: 1st break the business model of telcos so that they supply only the pipes. 2nd: spur competition (with products like google voice and skype) to commoditize bandwidth.
Sadly Google doesn't really believe in this. And the general public is too dumb to understand that there is no free lunch, that a 0$ phone cost a lot more than what it ought to.
I thought Google was the one to achieve this. This excellent article burst my bubble:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2367680,00.asp
I guess we need another champion to achieve this.
I don't see a single thing here that justifies carving up the wireless internet. Highly competitive is too often used a an excuse to implement anti-competitive policies.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, we need google. They've done too much for us so far to declare their end after this one indiscretion. But we, as consumers of their products, need to find a way to demonstrate that we will not continue to mindlessly follow their lead if they choose to go where we do not want to.
If anything, maybe this is an opportunity - explore competing services, try yahoo or hotmail again, try zoho instead of google docs, even - gasp! - give cuil a shot again. Maybe consider a Win7 or RIM phone. Even a few percentage point slip in their usage rates will make them think twice.
GOOGLE WTF. I was considering getting a droid. Now I want to blow up my laptop for being so easily swept off it's feet by Chrome.
ReplyDeleteI'm switching my browser and investigating other web based email.
Thanks a lot, jerks.
GOOGLE you claim you are all about openness and doing what is right, and doing things based on THE PEOPLE'S feedback.
ReplyDeleteStop trying to debunk what the people are saying and listen... WE ARE PISSED!!
Bottom line is, 2 companies who are already in bed together should not be the sole voice behind regulating the industry that they themselves operate in... the businesses always win and the people lose.
Google, you can't claim to be for net neutrality and then cherry pick which aspects apply to which "internet pipes."
ReplyDeleteEither support the whole thing across the board or support none.
We see plenty of hypocrites in government already. The last thing we need is you joining the "sell out America" train.
switching to Bing!
ReplyDeleteIf you have to write a blog post to interpret this for everyone...don't you feel you might have written something wrong in the original proposal?
ReplyDeleteEveryone loved Google not because of your ability to compromise with large corporations or understand politics, but because you held the same notions on the topic as the rest of us Internet lovers. Being a big corporation yourself, you weren't afraid of standing by your views and help protect the internet the right way.
Compromises, sometimes, go wrong. Google's compromise in this situation, I feel, is wrong.
If you want to start a conversation, start it with what you truly feel is right. You didn't need Verizon to help you with this proposal (though I understand the advantages of their support).
Propose something Google of 2007 would propose. Do not propose something Google/Verizon make a deal on.
Many times there was mention of "wireline Internet traffic". Such thing does not exist separately and is a false concept. There is one and only one "Internet traffic". Now, when a day comes and we have even a single occurrence of Internet traffic which does not touch wired infrastructure, you may have some basis for this distinction.
ReplyDeleteIf Google really wants to support NetNeutrality push should be there NOT for some Govt. agency to regulate it, be it FCC or whichever. Push must be for SIMPLE legislation banning any internet traffic meddling, shaping, altering, falsifying,... by anyone. Govt. and Corporations alike. If it propagates through Internet infrastructure regardless of origin or destination or type - no one can touch it or treat it differently vs. any other packet of information. Who enforces it? Private lawsuits.
"Because wireless networks employ airwaves, rather than wires, and share constrained capacity among many users, these carriers need to manage their networks more actively."
ReplyDeleteThen they can cap data delivery rather than pushing the for-pay bytes in front of others.
“ Another aspect of the joint proposal would allow broadband providers to offer certain specialized services to customers… the chief challenge is to let consumers benefit from these non-Internet services, without allowing them to impede on the Internet itself.”
The problem is that the providers maintain large chunks of the current architecture (please feel free to correct me on this point). Anyone think they’d continue to invest in it at the same rate rather than let it slowly fall apart as they invest more and more in their higher return walled garden? Show of hands.
***
I think I see Google's underlying play here. Google has a large private internet and wants to sell premium services to fund turning into a huge parallel private internet. This internet will have a ton of leverage with carriers. It will be high security. It will allow high-fidelity streaming across the globe. Thing is, it’ll have a ton of leverage with not just carriers but *everyone*, including rivals in any area Google sees fit to defend or enter. Google trusts itself with that power more than anyone else, or no one. But that’s the line of just about every dictator and monopoly in history.
The FCC would enforce the consumer protection and nondiscrimination requirements through case-by-case adjudication, but would have no
ReplyDeleterulemaking authority with respect to those provisions
its a real shame this will leave a mark on google forever, as THE only company to truly have the power to fight...and give in after everything.
ReplyDeleteyeah politics suck, but when your standing up for the little guys who do the actual work and decide to give in because no one else is helping company wise, then youre no better then the guys your fighting against
google just f**ked up
seriously, any scheme they come up with now is gonna look like crap and desperation
I'm getting a real thumbs-down vibe here ...
ReplyDeleteEpic fail.
ReplyDeleteDifferent regulations for Wired vs Wireless is the definition of net discrimiation.
ReplyDeleteWireline ALSO has bandwidth limitations as Wireless does - the only difference is the maturity of the wireline platform.
ALLOWING anything other then straight up non-discriminatory methods of connection/transfer is the complete opposite of net neutrality.
ALLOWING companies to offer specialized services PERIOD is the complete opposite of net neutrality.
GOOGLE! YOU HAVE DISAPPOINTED US!
Having worked at a tier-1 ISP, and having been both a business and consumer customer of ISPs, I would be happy if only the transparency guideline were put into practice.
ReplyDeleteRight now, it's exceedingly difficult to get accurate pre-sales information from ISPs about what traffic they block and what, if any, traffic shaping they do. Just being able to receive that information before signing a contract would be a significant boon to customers of all stripes.
The wired/wireless distinction seems largely arbitrary, but it is true that there are differences in capital expense and buildout/provisioning strategies between the two.
The FCC and Congress have been dragging their feet on network neutrality for more than five years. Where has all of this outrage, scorn and fire been? When the Comcast ruling came down, where were all of you? I'm troubled by many parts of this proposal, but how do you expect Google to respond when it is clear our government isn't getting the job done. If they kept sitting back the telecoms would have carved up both wired and wireless Internet. At least this is movement and at least this has gotten the discussion going. Instead of leaving nasty comments all over the place, why don't you call your Congress folks and start camping out at the FCC?
ReplyDeleteSounds like your typical corporate PR. Speak in plain language and tell the truth. Google may need to change its logo to Greedle. It's a pure sell-out. Shame on you Google.
ReplyDeleteGoogle is a sellout, bottom line; you're selling our rights to a free internet to the Tel-coms like Verizon; Your company is starting to lose steam as evidenced by your investments in social media. You're trying to stay relevant by cutting off the chances of another Google coming about; Suffice to say I'm ultimately disappointed in you.
ReplyDeleteDon't be evil has become Be there, at whatever the cost.
A "this is a big step forward" statement is disingenuous. If a policy gets made then it is what we shall have, forever. And under the proposed policy it will be bad.
ReplyDeleteMYTH: Do no evil.
ReplyDeleteDon't try to tell me the wireless market is competitive when prices are going up while services decline.
Google has enjoyed a near monopoly on search-based advertising. Now that they're moving into the wireless market, they're seeing the advantages of siding with another near monopoly, big telecom.
Wow. From looking at these comments I guess there aren't reasonable people on the Internet.
ReplyDeleteGoogle is proposing a great and realistic proposal here and people are trashing it.
Next we'll all be demanding that we all deserve 1GB/s access to the Interent in our homes for free.
Calm down people! The Internet has been doing pretty good on its own. Its not suddenly going to go to crap when we add protections to most of it.
People left AOL's private network for the public Internet for a reason. The Internet is doing to be just fine, but it could use some regulation were there isn't very much competition like in the wireline arena.
Comparing Google's previous public statements regarding network neutrality and this abomination there is no shadow of a doubt that Google has not only sold out but is engaging in the highest form of falsehood with this "fact" sheet.
ReplyDeleteThe public has put a great deal of trust into google to safeguard and protect our information and interests and google has benefited greatly from that trust, becoming one of the most powerful companies in the world because of it.
Where is that trust when Google is not only so quick and willing to break that trust on something as crucial to our collective futures as network neutrality but then turns around and lies about it?
Where has all of this outrage, scorn and fire been? When the Comcast ruling came down, where were all of you?
ReplyDeletewe expect comcast to be evil, their an isp, i got throttled, i had to sit there and figure out if my tv shows were being slowed on purpose. comcast represents the just another isp
but google, well, they arent the ones to throttle content, they arent the ones who do stupid things, they were supposed to be the hero of the story, and they flaked
in a world of bad, they were supposed to be the good.
I'm entirely open to hearing more about the technical limitations of current wireless infrastructure that would make non-neutral networks a bad thing (in terms of applications you could run, hold up to America as a leading innovator, that sort of thing.) However, I very strongly object to your claim that the cellular marketplace is competitive.
ReplyDeleteProviders—AT&T, Verizon, Sprint et al—only compete up front for new customers. The comparative qualities of Verizon and AT&Ts networks is wildly cited as a reason for reduced iPhone uptake, for example. But once they have you, no matter who, you're there for 24 months. Contractually tied in to whatever they do to their network in that—frankly—very long period of time. If that industry is as fast changing as you say (and I believe that it is) that sort of contractual lock in is a massively countenance to consumers being about to respond to unpopular/undesired/etc. network policies of their provider. Were Verizon to announce that they would prioritize Yahoo! Video and YouTube over Vimeo and College Humor, for example, I would be unable to quit in protest. I would be unable as a consumer to act on the alleged competition between these networks.
Maybe they are competitive in the long game. But not in a way that benefits consumers day-to-day, to which net neutrality contributes.
Since customers are to be contractually prevented from using the market to respond to neutrality violating policies, then it is necessary for their neutrality interests to be enforced from above. Granting the networks a pass is unacceptable without direct consumer empowerment as well.
I think we should all get ad-blockers to boycott this corporate greediness. May of you have said you will boycott Google, Gmail, Youtube.. BUT Most of you will find it impractical to do so for any extended period of time.
ReplyDeleteThe best of both worlds is to continue to milk Google (as they have milked us -- we the bloggers, the email users, the people of the internet are the "content" providers, Google simply devalues everything it touches.. from books, to news, to video, etc) If we get enough users to block the annoying all-pervasive pesty "Ads by Google" maybe we can get the message across..
If Google thinks its entitled to make proposals that would slow down the so-called "public" Internet and then make us pay more for services that we have already paid for.. then I no longer see the justification for us to allow ourselves to continue to be inflicted by more and more of Google's avaricious advertisements on the "public" Internets.
The browsing experience is already
worsened by all the adwords, adsense, google-analytics, doubleclick, crap .. so on top of inflicting us with your ads, tracking us and collecting our private information to sell out to advertisers and governments.. now you want to tax and toll us all over again?
Google's Achilles heel is adwords. They know what, and that is precisely why they are preemptively trying to control and lock down the entire Internet. We must not allow that to happen! We must stand for something before there is nothing left to stand up for. If we all started using adblockers aggressively and promoting awareness of this, we can boycott this pure evilness and hurt Google where it matters the most - the bottomline wallet. I'm sure your shareholders will be very happy about that?!
Maybe Microsoft can come and save the day by learning a lesson from Verizon/Google and install a default adblocker/ privacy tracking blocker/ etc on IE9 in the name of "privacy" and "freedom" and "openness" and then start debunking criticism with a MYTH/FACT sheet too.. and save the Internet as we know it in the process.. I never thought this day would come when Microsoft is the good guy here.
Go BING go!
The argument about consumers having choice in the wireless spectrum is specious at best. Although there are several providers to choose from, the reality is that most consumers will be locked into multi-year plans when purchasing an expensive smartphone - the kind of device that needs unfettered internet access.
ReplyDeleteSo much legalese. I've tried to decipher this as best as I can.
ReplyDeletehttp://brianshall.com/content/facts-about-our-network-neutrality-proposal
Google, can you be that naive?
ReplyDelete"Do No Evil" is looking more and more like "Do Some Evil When Expedient"
You used to be the standard bearer for decency. Now, you are behaving like a Microsoft Mini-Me....
Shelly
Seriously google?
ReplyDeleteBefore this proposal, you made your position very clear.
ReplyDeleteNow you're saying this is the best that was possible.
Why did you even feel the need to make this deal. You could have just held on to your position, instead of selling us, your loyal customers out.
Instead you made some cooky deal in a backroom.
I'd call that backstabbing, also known as politics. Say one thing, do the other.
"So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service" - so, if you can't afford the premium, your bank account should be at a greater risk of being compromised?
ReplyDeleteQuote by Josh Highley:
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I'd rather have increased competition in wired broadband instead of gov't regulation (which can be a slippery slope).
You sound like someone who still, after all this time, doesn't understand NET Neutrality. Government regulation is not a slippery slope. Government regulation is necessary.
I think you are failing to understand that the Government regulation is of the ISPs; not the users. Without being regulated and told to share & play nice, the ISPs will cannibalize the internet to suit themselves. For instance, claiming "their" part of the network infrastructure as their own and charging competing ISPs to use it (a fee that will be passed onto the consumer). The extra fees would of course be all under the guise of providing additional "premium services", which is of course complete BS.
In reality, much of the infrastructure was (and still is for rural areas) subsidized by public funding. The internet does NOT belong to the ISPs... at least not completely. It is a public utility and should be treated as such and, just as utility companies are regulated to ensure they adhere to certain standards, so should ISPs.
Congratulations Google ... you've taken your first steps towards the dark side.
ReplyDeleteIt's not like this is "evil" ... just really really naughty.
There has never been neutrality; that is the largest myth. The tempest has always been in a teapot since the only folks with enough clue to make an interpretation of what is 'reasonable' are the technocrats who already make that call.
ReplyDeleteWhile I'm here: "Only two choices in wireline" because it costs real money to run physical infrastructure, and *no* end user is willing to pay the actual costs thanks to race-to-the-bottom marketing. This is the real reason most all competitive facilities-based last-mile carriers keel over.
The only thing more disturbing (and disgusting) than Google's shameless, vile dishonesty is the willful blindness (stupidty?) of some of the commenters who believe Google actually has their -- and the Open Internet's -- interest at heart.
ReplyDeleteOr are they Google employees?
Anyways, time to start using a new search engine.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWe should *pray* Google's proposal is enacted...
ReplyDeleteFor the following reasons:
++Google's proposal is a suggested framework -- we'll be very lucky if Congress actually adopts this framework in full; after the corporate dollars and lobbyists are finished with actual legislation we will all be yearning for the days of Google's proposal...
++Google's proposal for wired broadband is solid and PRACTICAL -- yes, it would be ideal if the "One and Only" Internet were actually built out everywhere equally with the infrastructure needed to support remote medical imaging, networked education platforms, national security networks, and other such high bandwidth and specialized applications -- but realistically that will not happen; the investment money is not there, and *certainly* not to bring the ENTIRE Internet up to a hardware level required for only a specific set of specialized users. Google's suggested requirement of these services as 'distinguishable in purpose and scope' from the Internet at large, is absolutely key.
++Google's proposal is purely ADDITIVE -- today we have few protections, if any after FCC v. Comcast -- Google's proposal ADDS needed protections and oversight, without creating any precedents that REDUCE protections (i.e. deciding to not subject wireless to this framework's regulations *now* at this moment in time, is NOT enacting a law that forbids such protections *tomorrow* in the future). Years have passed without any Federal progress on this issue -- should we insist on trashing Google's framework and doing nothing because it delays a more robust regulatory framework for wireless? Delays -- not prohibits -- and yes, Google's proposal ADDS more protection/oversight for wireless than exists today.
++Legislation and consumer protections do not appear magically in a void. The public should be grateful that Google is actually addressing this issue -- would you prefer Fox or TimeWarner, or any of the other 'old media' companies deliver their proposals to Congress first? Or perhaps we should just let Congress work this out between the Federal goverment and the 'will of the people,' the citizens of the United States (who are all *so* informed and actively engaged on this issue, or any other)?
Believe me, I am (still) concerned, and I believe the burden of proof for Public Interest will always remain on the corporation. I participated in the "Save the Internet" campaign and wrote Google shortly after the NY Times story broke, but I did not accuse Google of being evil after I'd simply read a news story. I wrote to them to express our serious concerns, and to urge them to speak publicly ASAP about their intentions. I hope the public will seek to learn about this issue, deeply, to guide their convictions.
Our concern and energy needs to be focused on Congress; who will take a purely 'additive' framework and do Who-Knows-What with it. We should be grateful to Google for taking the stance they've outlined, for finding a practical and amenable solution (and communicating openly with the public), and because Google is is pro-actively participating in and advocating for a legislative solution.
actions speak louder than words.
ReplyDeletewireless internet is the future.
google says wireless should not be neutral.
even a child can see that google has effectively abandoned internet neutrality with this position.
I predicted -exactly- this would happen. I was speaking to my boss Simon Davies begin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting just 2 days ago on this issue and said I felt that Google would try to mitigate the backlash of their announcement by saying "Oh but look we are giving the FCC powers they currently don't have!!! At the moment the FCC can't do anything and we can all be really evil!!!!" as a "slight of hand" on the wireless issues. Lo and behold as predicted Google come out and do -exactly- that.
ReplyDeleteGoogle this is a complete joke and I will do everything I can to fight this as I am sure many other people will.
Alexander Hanff
Privacy International.
This whole regulation issue has now turned upside down. The FCC is the agency that was put in place to regulate the use of the airwaves - a public resource that has limited capacity and must be shared - to make sure the use is fair and in public interest. It is, therefore, FCC's primary mission to regulate the wireless communication and enforce net neutrality principles there. On the other hand, the wired broadband uses cables going over private lands should stay out of reach of FCC, since there is no limited resource to share.
ReplyDeleteNow, how does this proposal fit into this framework?
We've been down this road before, with regulated "common carrier" access to the telephone network and unregulated "information services" access. Guess what: everything that wasn't pure dialtone got defined as "information services", and monopoly power did its thing.
ReplyDeleteThis is a proposal that requires a pro-active, consumer-oriented FCC and a responsive congress to work safely. But in Google's own words, it's being proposed because the FCC and congress haven't been doing the job people want them to do. This is like Countrywide in 2005 proposing a great new set of subprime regulations for the Office of Thrift Supervision to adopt.
Not good enough Google. Wireless is not "competitive" as you say it is. If Comcast annoys me, I can switch to AT&T (if available) without paying hefty termination fees. Can you say the same about the wireless market? Wireless merely has the semblance of competitiveness.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, power relinquished is never regained. If wireless is allowed to be non-neutral, it will never become neutral again.
This post makes Google sound truly Orwellian. In the same way that the Ministry of Peace dealt with war, Google is taking a blatant reversal of their stance on Net Neutrality, and is framing it as a step forward.
ReplyDeleteGoogle, you have lost my trust, and the trust of a lot of other people. If you want that trust back, you will have admit your mistake. Even Steve Jobs ended up admitting the antenna was flawed...
I don't buy it. My opionion of Google has officially changed. Historically, the telecom industry has always managed to reach terms on with proposed 'good faith', then turn around and screw everyone involved. The state of America's networks testify to their present intentions, as does that obscene amounts they charge and their business practices. There is no compromising between two corporations; it's not their job. It is the role of the government to make the rules, not to ask the players to make the rules.
ReplyDeleteI can't believe where this country has gone, and how its citizens routinely buy in to everything foolish.
Meet a sugar coated Google.
Just like the Democrats, you compromised too soon. You have to stand your ground until they come to you asking for support, being that you are Google, practically God of the net...you could do this. You compromised too soon, so disappointed. You guys are really good at doing stuff, so you should have put together a crack team to handle intense negotiations.
ReplyDeleteDid anyone think of what this could do to the wireless market? People may reject wireless outright due to it. I know I had planned to go wireless, but now...eh no thanks. If things get to bad and companies start herding people towards wireless, I'll just go back to dial up. Ya, that serious.
As for verizon, totally disappointed. I used to support them too. If anything, I think THEY should have compromised and lead the way. People would have flocked to them. I was just at the Verizon store before reading this, and looking at their broadband...eh no thanks. After this I realize it isn't worth it.
How exactly would this proposal deal with an issue like Comcast blocking bit torrent?
ReplyDeleteWhy did you even bother posting this ridiculous myth/fact piece? Did you really think users would believe your outrageous lies? You should have simply shut up and not said anything. Do you really expect me to believe that this would be a good thing so my service provider can offer me better specific services? The entire point of the Internet is if I have a heart monitor that talks over WiFi, I shouldn't have to pay my ISP an extra $20/mo to make sure those packets actually arrive at the hospital.
ReplyDeleteJust go on and keep making your money, you're all greedy and selfish. I suppose Google and Verizon deserve one another. Two greedy companies.
I think all of this sounds reasonable:
ReplyDelete* It all seems that we are going through a "wireless crysis". Hence The ISPs will have neutrality zero in wireless.
* ISPs are also given the ability to create neutrality-free wired zones (with the condition that they are used for a purpose and they preserve openness of the 'open internet').
* In exchange we get the gift of the 'open internet' which is exactly what we have now minus the wireless and the services that ISPs will now prefer to put in the neutrality-free zones.
* Besides of the 'open internet' we have also earned the hope that one day, when the 'wireless crysis' finally ends, they will give us the gift of the 'open wireless internet' in which we will enjoy all those wonderful things that 'the open internet' has. The ISPs of the future (about five years) will finally have to comply to the rules that we are creating today - they will have to create neutrality-free wireless zones.
Google has certainly not sold out on net neutrality plus they are clearly VERY good negotiators. That Google and Verizon work together on the Android is a mere coincidence.
Negotiating a proposal where net neutrality won't exist for 90% of users within two decades truly is the definition of selling out on advocacy for Net Neutrality.
ReplyDeleteThey can already price bits going up and bits coming down however they want, that is a fundamentally simpler and more direct way to manage traffic issues than any pricing structure this agreement might open up.
What a bunch of BS, I thought google might just be the first large corporation to stick to a truly ethical mission statement throughout it's lifespan, but alas, money and "political realities" (also known as "a voluntary worldview in which we don't make more than tiny sacrifices for the things we believe in") have precipitated this udder capitulation.
For people who don't think this is a capitulation, if your argument for how Neutrality will exist in 20 years for more than a handful of bits is that this will be "revisited" (read: "have both of the gaping loopholes closed") at some non-descript point in the future, I've got some "political realities for you.
If google moves to unify neutrality language for both wireless and wireline tech (including future technology) I will use every product and service they offer. Until then, I'm willing to put up with a lot hassle to avoid them.
Everyone once in a while you get a public figure with balls who throws the rest of his career out the window to push through a positive change that lasts for decades, and occasionally no one even saw it coming. I didn't think Genachowski was that guy, but his response to this proposal put some fire in my belly.
Access to the internet is crucial. Sharing non-genetic information is the only new thing humans bring to this godforsaken planet! Anyone who talks about "political realities" and "mostly neutral" should be shot.
What are sacrifices you have to make in order to have open wired and wireless networks from here to eternity? If you can't come up any that don't wither completely when confronted with the fact that the internet is the most revolutionary development in the only thing that really makes us interesting as a species, you don't have an argument, it really is that simple.
The only thing that makes human being unique on this planet is our ability to pass down non-genetic information.
ReplyDeleteThe question that needs to be asked is this: How much is going to hurt to have net neutrality on all networks? How much truly has to be sacrificed?
If the answer withers when confronted with the fact that this technology is single most revolutionary tool ever devised to advance the one thing that makes us interesting as a species, then you probably shouldn't be leaning on it to support a point in this argument.
The fact is that no one hurting because we have de facto neutrality right now. Telecoms are having some great fiscal quarters.
The benefits of abandoning it are pitifully insignificant compared to possible damage of doing so.
Also, when I said "udder" capitulation... well, nevermind...
ReplyDeleteI don't know that I agree with the proposal (haven't spent enough time thinking about it). For those that think that this is selling out somehow...this is the reality of political lobbying. Google just has the fortitude to do it in public (and of course wants us to help them lobby :)).
ReplyDeleteMost companies do this...you just never hear about it until it is a law.
Oh what an epic clusterfuck!
ReplyDelete"Well,the first time we tried to sell out and screw the public over we were caught with our pants down." -Google,Monday
"How dare the unwashed masses resist against us?!" -Google,Tuesday
"So lets try this again, but this time lets try to make the public feel as though they really deserved it." -Google,Wednesday
"So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability – so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet. Some broadband providers already offer these types of services today. The chief challenge is to let consumers benefit from these non-Internet services, without allowing them to impede on the Internet itself." -Google,Thursday
public internet? non-internet services? impede on the internet itself?
Brin and Page have Phd's in Computer Science from Stanford, Schimdt from Berkeley.
"Evil began in a time before recorded history, when magicians made themselves into kings…and gods…using the powers of the dark side of the Force. The weak-minded have ever been ready to obey one who wields great power. Those who learned the powers of the dark side were quick to exploit this weakness—to make war. Again and again the dark side has surged forth, like a storm…devouring whole worlds and entire star systems. Those who mastered dark power became dark power. They unleashed destruction, for no other reason but selfish gain. They despoiled nations…destroyed whole civilizations. Some of them, I am ashamed to say, were Jedi." ―Ood Bnar [Star Wars]
"We did not enter the search business. They entered the phone business. Make no mistake: they want to kill the iPhone. We won't let them [...] This don't be evil mantra? It's bullshit." - Steve Jobs [Apple] on Google, Jan 2010
"Under the spreading chestnut tree
I sold you and you sold me—" - George Orwell, 1984
Google is good for something. "Google" "Big Lie" and then think about it.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, if the law makers are allowed to decide this on their own, its going to get ugly, AND stupid, and probably never get done at all. Personally, I believe the FCC should reclassify both wired and wireless internet providers as they were, pre-bush era. Telecom common carriers, with certain rules exempted, as is the FCC heads' third option. Also to use the USF funds for broadband, instead of, or at least in addition to, ancient POTS technology.
ReplyDeleteThe internet is enabling the people to have a real voice, not only in America, but across most parts of the world. Its enabling the most intelligent people in the world to solve problems together and bridge gaps never before possible, and do so at an ever faster pace as the technology does. This voice should not be encumbered by various special interests, including shareholders and dinosaur industries and political parties. For as I see it, its the new path to our own evolution and survival, and is much needed, because even our current technology is far too capable of wiping us all out, if left to government leaders and unscrupulous corporations alone.
The reality of our current situation though, at least in the US, is there is only so much space alotted for broadband use in the airwaves. These slices of the spectrum for the public's internet, are very small, and everyone else using spectrum for other purposes wants to keep what they've got, stupid or not. So there's simply not enough room for uninhibited growth of all kinds of possible internet traffic on these airwaves. Unless leaders can take action, and MAKE room for it, some sort of traffic prioritization is going to be necessary. The FCC has a plan to make some room, over a long period of time, but in typical government fashion, its going to take forever. There's LOTS of underutilized spectrum out there, and lots more that could be reclaimed if the current services using them were transformed to on-demand type service the internet is good at providing, instead of simply broadcasting to everyone at once using these valuable spectrum slices. I think, the military's got way too much of it, and could certainly better utilize or transition part of what they have to free up some very good spectrum. There's lots of other places to look, and those in the know, already know some.
However, to reshape the wireless landscape, would cost lots and lots of money. A dramatic redrawing of the airwaves, could be the sort of thing to say, jump start a flailing economy, and provide lots of good technical and manufacturing jobs among others, create demand for all sorts of new services and equipment, and industries even. It could be, something like another internet boom. Imagine if you were to have Google's proposed 1Gbps fiber connection, in your pocket. Available to everyone in America. That would be something, and is certainly possible.
Or, we could just sit on our thumbs, and wait for more industrious countries to pass us by with our own creation. Like it seems were doing now.
So at least Google seems to be helping to progress the discussion, without committing to long term limitations on our freedoms with the internet. And getting them to agree to transparency so we'll at least know how they're doing it, and what they're doing it to, so we can find ways to circumvent it, or at least complain about it. Until these dinosaur industries finally die, or someone motivated enough with enough power is able to really do something about it, or even the FCC is finally able to do it, which is tough, seeing as how its leadership and priorities get changed every so often.
Why are you all surprised. Google is a multi-billion dollar enterprise. The Do No Evil BS ended long ago.
ReplyDeleteLike any major corporation, Google will do what it thinks is in the best interest of its shareholders.
I just wish they'd come out and be honest about it. Enough with this crap about 'champions of the open Internet.'
Google is a champion of maximizing profitability. Anyone who thought they would be any different, shame on you for being suckered. This is the American way. Always has been, always will be.
I'm with the rest of them - GOOGLE SOLD OUT. If you're gonna go hop in bed with Verizon then I might as well hop in bed with Yahoo or Bing.
ReplyDeleteWills, what you say about the need to open up the spectrum is absolutely true, the problem is that the FCC, like it or not, is the body that has the mandate to do it. It's as Churchill said, "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
ReplyDeleteWe need to own up to the fact that when a government body with a clear mandate and clear authority doesn't act in our best interests, it's because we the people didn't make it happen. Comments like "in typical government fashion" abdicate our responsibility to take an active role in our own governance.
Game theory dictates that in a market with only a few players controlling that vast majority of the market, competition grinds to a halt and they tend to raise or lower their rates in tandem. This is modern definition of "Oligopoly" that nearly all economists accept.
This proposal pushes us toward less competition, not more. By exempting wireless and future wired technology, google ensures that no startup will ever be able to provide as high a quality of service as a youtube or a hulu. Not because of any competence they possess, but because the resources they were willing to throw at it politically outmatched the resources the other 300 million of us were willing throw at it.
Telecommunications innovation flourished more here under common carrier regulation than anywhere else in the world. The sacrifices needed to maintain open networks are not that great. Prioritizing traffic (like VOIP or Medical comm.) is not a violation, only prioritizing one provider over another.
How'd that "step forward" work in China?
ReplyDeleteImagine for a second if every startup for a data-heavy service in the world had neutral access to the chinese or the EU consumer market, but was forced to partner with a loaded american firm to get access to the same speed as it's competitors in the US market...
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think this does to market choice in the US?
Anyone who wants to support honestly free-market politicians, this is a great litmus test for you... If you're into that sort of thing.
Sorry Chris. It's not for you to say whether you sold out or not.
ReplyDeleteThere's many reasonable people who view the famous paragraph #5 as the proof.
You may want to read it again.
There's an absolute lack of concordance between that text and the stated goals Google always stood for.
If you stand for something different now, that's fine, but it's an insult to the collective intelligence of your customers and developer community to tell them that it's them who are wrong.
It's not for you to say whether the decision you took is what's best for us.
You fucked up. Deal with it, or better: fix it.
I don't buy it. Your explanations are full of fancy wording and feel good verbiage but underneath it the concessions and proposals made in "the spirit of compromise" compromise the idea of net neutrality itself.
ReplyDeleteI thought Google - who appeared to be one of the lone voices with a big audience in this debate - actually supported those of us who don't have the platform of a corporation to speak from. I was absolutely wrong, like you are in compromising with Verizon, AT&T or whoever else demands concessions and compromise to the idea that the internet should be open and free.
So whatever, sell out if you want to. I won't stop using your services, but I'm pissed off. I thought you guys were above this kind of bullshit. Way to be another shill. What happened to "Don't Be Evil?"
What the hell happened to don't be evil?
ReplyDeleteYour company has given political cover to the "bad guys". You lie down with dogs, you get fleas. Time to switch search engines.
Also, I just dumped my Droid phone in a bucket of water. And I am about to cancel my gmail account and delete chrome off my HD.
Nice job.
I hear Hotmail is hot again
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely pathetic.
ReplyDeleteThis will be the last post from my account, beyond this I will be switching search providers to duckduckgo, and email providers to hushmail. I'll be dumping my 2200 shares of google, They're up 7.60 from where I bought them, so it's both a profit to me, and a fuck you to you.
How can you continue to attempt to tell people that this is a 'good' idea, for our protection? Why not just sign into a deal that says "This is good for our bottom line, fuck you."
I'll be taking my 10,000 searches a year and my business email elsewhere.
I'd like whoever, from Google, is going to read these comments to take a look at an article hosted on your own domain. I have been a long time supporter of Google, using gmail, search, voice, and other services. Your credibility has dropped in my eyes for even considering this.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html
The "the spirit of compromise" seems to have replaced "do no evil"
ReplyDeleteGoogle is complicit in the cableization of the Internet. That's evil!
ReplyDeleteDuckDuckGo is the new Google
ReplyDeleteIt is very disappointing to see Google "compromising" on behalf of all the netizens in a closed door meeting and coming up with a proposal. I hope they don't soon "compromise" on all the user data they have been collecting lately.
ReplyDelete"The difference between facts and myths is that we are not evil"
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry but I don't give a fuck what you have to say. Google lost points in my mind with this Verizon deal.
ReplyDeleteFACT: Google Did Evil
ReplyDeleteGoogle is the third player in a market that was dominated by Microsoft and Apple.
ReplyDeleteApple was all but D.O.A before the ipod/itunes.
Competition in the market serves consumers. Who would you rather have negotiating this-
Steve, Bill, or Larry and Sergey?
Anything less than 100% net neutrality is not acceptable. We don't see things like freedom of the press done halfway-- freedom is meaningless if it is compromised at all.
ReplyDeleteAny system put in place to control traffic types or content, even if they start out as simple, seemingly harmless compromises, will ultimately ruin net neutrality. Anything past the statement "All web content from all sources must be treated equally," will allow those with interest to manipulate the internet toward their own aims.
Government: We'll push internet service to nationwide availability, but you won't like the watered down result compared to people who can afford last mile relay service from satellite, or people who in cities.
ReplyDeleteCorporations: Our real money is made off of business access. We build where the business is, and in this recession, we're through with building. We'll upgrade existing service to fiber, but if we haven't got to you yet, we're not going to get to you. If you don't like it, go die in a fire. Nobody cares.
Wireless companies: We can't handle all of this wireless broadband for the entire country.
AT&T: iPhone 3G. Remember that fiasco? People complaining about dropped calls and data loss?
Wireless companies: Yeah, seriously. We can't do the same service that wired service can. Why doesn't anyone believe us?
Customers: We just want to use the internet the way it is. The government and corporate america disagree, so goodbye internet.
I'm calling shenanigans
ReplyDeleteGoodbye Google! Next stop Yahoo and Bing...
ReplyDeleteDo more evil?
ReplyDeleteI posted a comment here yesterday, to find it gone now.
ReplyDeleteI never thought Google would stoop THAT low.
Goodbye, traitors.
Google has turned evil, and now time to Bing it.
ReplyDeletethey always say don't be evil, but why every time i use some of their services i don't have a good feeling ?
ReplyDeletetry:
http://www.ixquick.com/
is a really good search engine with full protection of privacy
"give the FCC the ability to preserve the open Internet through enforceable rules on broadband providers." .
ReplyDeleteI do not understand this preserve the open through enforceable rules. The internet is already open. All you have to do is leave it as it is. NO enforceable rules are required for anyone to leave it open.
Why are you deleting my comments ?
ReplyDeleteThis is the 3rd I'm posting.
Can you please give me an explanation for the deletion of my comments?
ReplyDeleteI did not swear or use offensive language. I understand my comments are not what you want to hear, but censorship?
This is my 4th comment.
Well, this turn of events really made me consider boycotting all google products.
ReplyDeleteThis BS "fact" sheet that tries to insult my intelligence just made the decision for me. I will no longer use chrome, I will no longer use gmail, I will no longer use your search, I will make sure I NEVER click on a google ad.
I would have respected your position allot more if you would have been honest, this is about GREED pure and simple.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is the worst thing that you could do to the medium that made you guys big. I really really can not believe that you are the ones to start it, i would not have been surprised if Verizon did something like this on their own but you guys? Come on, "do no evil",think about that for a while, don't just become another microsoft, another big rich company, only driven by profit, do something good and stop this madness.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to tell my future children about the "old internet" when it was a zone of freedom, free speech and unlimited potential for good, don't be the company to start it's end, be the one that will be remembered as being one of the amazing exceptions to the sad rule that power corrupts.
yours sincerely very worried
by the way i switched ton bing for my searches i cannot support a company with this kind of policy that sells put everything that made them one of the big players.
ReplyDeleteI think I'd like to bring a different angle to the discussion. Here are the facts: I already pay an ISP to get access to the internet. When I pay for this service, I am paying for a connection with a given bandwidth (call it 5 mpbs). If this is the speed that has been advertised to me, then this is the speed that I am entitled to. In this regard, you should not have any right to selectively buffer the speeds of the content which I access. ISPs have posed that they built the infrastructure, the networks, and therefore should be allowed to do as they choose. However, they seem to have overlooked numerous government subsidies including billions upon billions which were meant to install fiber-optic connections in the home, which they quietly pocketed (admittedly, sources needed). If a fiber network had been installed then likely there would be much less squabbling over bandwidth. However, given google's own language, it is in every ISPs interest to commoditize bandwidth, or in other words create scarcity.
ReplyDeleteNext, I agree with Google in that there is very little competition in terms of wireline ISPs (in CA it's Comcast or AT&T), but I scoff at the idea that there is competition among wireless carriers. Net-neutrality might be a non-issue if there were legitimate competition among wireless providers, because you could choose an ISP who respected you as a consumer, but this is just not the case. A handful of providers have obscene control over the networks and as somebody mentioned earlier, lock in their customers using service contracts. This has the profound effect of stifling competition and reactions to abusive policies.
Recapilating again, someone mentioned that Google will set an industry precedent for the rest of the internet titans to follow. As such, it has grossly capitulated on the internet technology that matters: wireless. Google has correctly recognized wireless is the future of the internet, and has effectively side-stepped the matter and proposed a paradigm which grants consumers protection on soon-to-be deprecated wireline technology. Thanks. For this reason, no Google: no compromises. See you bright and early at the Googleplex.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@David: Thankx, I save a lot of typing!
ReplyDeleteThe damage is done. It doesn't matter what happens Google will be seen as the ones who sold out on Net Neutrality.
ReplyDeleteWired and wireless access aren't different at all. Just because Google wants to move into wireless doesn't excuse the deliberate and willful attempt at taking a dump on Net Neutrality.
I think big companies always end up going down the greedy path... and I was wondering when Google was going to prove that theory. That day has come. Thanks a lot.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but this is clearly damage control and an obvious attempt at spinning the story.
ReplyDeleteIf the PR team for Google is truly interested in turning this negative reaction around, go back to the whiteboard and submit a policy that protects the customer and has the customer needs in mind. We want net neutrality across the board, regardless of the medium.
Don't use politics to create more revenue. Satisfy your customer and the revenue will increase.
Welcome to the Googleopoly. I can't believe we allow this to happen!
ReplyDeleteWelcome to the Googleopology. I can't believe we allowed this to happen!
ReplyDeleteThis makes me so sad. I really did trust Google before this. It really breaks my heart to see Google do this, and it will inform my decisions of whether or not to trust them in the future. Very sad.
ReplyDeleteSo sad. There are principles in this world that one should stand for regardless of "political realities".
ReplyDeleteThe Obama administration's FCC has been staunchly in favor of full net neutrality partly because a few large businesses like Google stood with them. Now Google has backed off to make more money and in the end we all get screwed.
as said in comments above, the future of the net is though the use of wireless. looks like you're putting in place a structure to hand the internet over to corporations. of course in your description it all sounds so innocent, but corps care about one thing only; profits. if there's money to be made with tiered pricing, it will happen. and what's worse, maybe these companies can start deciding what i can and can't do with their service.
ReplyDeletethe politicians who are supposed to be looking out for us (dems and repubs) are bought and sold by the dozen. this is a scary proposition.
I believe that Google and Verizon are doing more work for our society then our government (USA) has done for us in the past decade. As a soldier, I would love to come work for Google when I leave the military, because I feel like I would be doing more for my country with them (Google) then I am doing under this administration.
ReplyDeleteUnless something better comes along, I'll vote for this proposal everyday.
Keep it up!
You've stabbed the public who supported you in the back.
ReplyDelete"Do no evil" as the company motto? I think it's time you changed that.
Please. This claim that wireless providers need to manage their networks? There is an *extremely* easy way for them to do that: charge a flat fee per megabyte. Done. Anything else is just a form of price discrimination. And one notes that despite all this great "competition" none of the wireless providers takes the route I just gave--each and every one of them charges an extra fee for tethering, etc. In my opinion that alone should be illegal, and it's enough to show that it's not a truly competitive market.
ReplyDeleteNo compromise
ReplyDeleteThe funny thing is that we are not having any problems with net neutrality or anything like it. I mean, look, I doubt that ISP's are slowing even 1% of traffic! Perhaps some P2P traffic, but it still moves just fine. This is just smoke and mirrors.
ReplyDeleteGoogle, I have been with you from the start. Now I can only hope a new company emerges to take your place.
I know some people like to be negative, in their responses, to everything. I am not. But this is very disappointing.
Google has been a freedom advocate on the net for some time now. Apparently, those days are over.
the gov't was going to do it anyway, might as well have a say in it...hard to blame them
ReplyDeleteGoogle, I'm disappointed. A neutral, open Internet is a big reason you guys were able to get where you are, and now you want to deny it to the next little guy who comes along with a better way of doing things. You owe the Internet better than that.
ReplyDeleteGovernment and corporate interests will always pervert whatever way NN legislation goes, so why does Google feels it's really necessary to compromise the belief that information wants to be free, and the 'do no evil' mantra? Put forth something on your own that doesn't compromise those ideas, and find something that will be perverted anyway, or put out a compromise, and find it perverted even more, into something that will screw over consumers at the benefit of the industry.
ReplyDeleteGoogle: "Net neutrality" means only one thing: A NEUTRAL internet. Your proposal, compromise, and political realities are hogwash. Sold out, indeed.
ReplyDeleteShame on Google. This is clearly them selling out.
ReplyDeleteDon't do evil...
ReplyDeleteDon't do evil...
Don't do evil...
Please live up to your own standards. Google is a White Knight for users in a terrible technology era. Please don't sell your soul to evil.
Just admit that you were wrong and people will forgive you. Trying to hide behind some lawyer BS just further distances you from users.
Here is a simple legislative framework:
ReplyDelete"Every packet should be treated equally. If independent analyst, programmers, etc. can provide proof that an ISP is discriminating between packets, then this ISP should be fined 10% of their net worth. If they repeat the offense, then they should have their license revoked. Period." Why do we make this more complicated?
I'm so disappointed in Google. :(
ReplyDelete"But given political realities, this particular issue has been intractable in Washington for several years now. At this time there are no enforceable protections ..."
ReplyDeleteGoogle: The enforceable protections are in the FCC mandate of "in the public interest." Your proposal for a two tiered internet with neutrality on one tier and preferred delivery speeds to the highest bidder on the other create a situation where the next two guys in the garage have to wait until corporate capitalization blesses them with the ability to play in the fast lane. Sorry, but that's not in the public interest, not in the spirit of your past partnerships, and comes awfully close to doing evil. Even if none of us knows what the future of the internet, your current proposal and this last post are highly cynical.
I'm confused how Google (and Googlers) helped Barack get into office and Barack appointed people to help Google with this issue and all Google can say is... "There is not enough traction..."
ReplyDeleteWhen will there be traction? You're telling me with an FCC who has been vocally advocating net neutrality, a democratic house, senate, and white house that you can't get any traction in DC?
You're telling me Google, who probably has Obama on speed dial, can't get him to at least sign an executive order (which is meaningless, but shows intent) to have the internet be neutral for all business and all consumers (big and small, rich and poor)?
It's not politics, just greed. There's only one Internet. Period. One Net Neutrality. Google has sold out and is pursuing its own interest in this matter. No amount of carefully written PR can distort this simple reality.
ReplyDeleteI will personally get rid of all Google services that I am currently using and will encourage everyone I know to follow the suit. We need to send a message to these corporate talking heads! It's the future of the Internet that is at stake and too few realize the consequences of this pact between Google/Verizon.
At least Facebook is onboard with REAL NET NEUTRALITY even if they're pursuing their own business interests.
Truly a sad day for web community when one of its darlings is going against its own motto. Google, YOU HAVE OFFICIALLY BECOME EVIL!
Google, maybe you should start a Wave so we can help you with your proposals. Oh, wait. Nevermind.
ReplyDeleteThe price for freedom is dealing with the consequences of that freedom. Without regulation we will get abuse but with regulation we are identifying the entities that will abuse us. I do not trust the governmental regulation because they don't have the specialized knowledge necessary to effectively regulate. I don't trust corporate regulation because they are in it for the money not the people. I don't trust social regulation because people are dumb, panicky, animals. No regulation; we will deal with the abusers when they occur.
ReplyDelete"It’s true that Google previously has advocated for certain openness"
ReplyDeleteYou just admitted The Treason! . This is the worse kind of backstabbing Google. See you in Bing and old reliable windows mobile 6.x. At least Microsoft has better ethics. No more clicks in your ads either.
We all know that this is the end of a beautiful thing. Whether it is the beginning of another, remains to be seen. The American tax dollar created this highway, the commercial dollar improved it. We have been horribly abused by greed and averice along the way. The legal arguments are sound, no doubt. What good old throat cutting capitalist would not just bend over and pick up a dollar off of the road? This is about higher values than cash. This is about doing what is right. It's about freedom of speech for everyone. The rich and the poor. Society lives here and no one business entity or industry has the right to twist it their way. Total packet equality is a standard that we change at our peril. Big business went ahead and disseminated my personal information without my permission, without me understanding the ramifications of that violation. They built an Empire on my tax money. Now they are going to take something else away. What might that be? Now i must go identify myself to the invisible powers so I can share my thoughts with you.
ReplyDeleteGoogle: You're a very large company with a lot of resources and political power. Why are you not fighting for REAL net neutrality?
ReplyDeleteThe airwaves are public space just as a lot of the wired lines that ISPs use are public because they were built with taxpayer money. If a company wants to use license the use of certain radio frequencies, they should have to play by the rules. If they can't handle a competitive environment, then they can get out of this business.
There should be no exceptions either. Allowing an ISP to throttle certain services in the name of trying to stop copyright infringement just opens up a loophole for the ISPs to use. Certainly an ISP will use this loophole to throttle any traffic they don't like, regardless if copyright infringement is involved.
These lines were laid and created with taxpayer money. Shouldn't the ISPs be regulated like the telcos and forced to treat all traffic as equal?
Don't sell out your principles Google, you're better than this. Take a stand and refuse to compromise. You're losing credibility with the people that care about this issue.
Myth: This post dcounters the EFF's points.
ReplyDeleteFact: Point for point, the EFF's criticism of this policy proposal stand. I seems to me you most often specifically call it's criticism a myth in the first point, and then turn around and clarify in the fact portion that they're right on target.
Kinda a problem
Gotta love the doomsday scenarios. Stop waving your hands for a second and take the proposal into consideration from the perspective of the content and access providers. I, for one, do not wish to have spam prioritized equally with my email or youtube on my mobile device.
ReplyDeleteEvery step of the way google clearly advocates FCC to monitor any and all wireless access priority changes, and furthermore advocates granting them explicit authority to change those priorities to protect consumers.
Google is proposing something that is *realistic* in the face of a debate that is going nowhere.
Do I believe they can "do no evil?" No. Is this the end of all internet as we know it? Not even close. It's a pragmatic compromise based on the very real current limitations of wireless, with caveats to keep checks in place.
A perfectly good start to a solution, and an invitation of collaboration for others. What more do you vampires want?
WHAT???
ReplyDeleteThis is crazy to think Google is not proceeding with this so they can be more profitable in the end.
For anyone who does not clearly see this is a Google wins and the people lose are nuts.
I have been a Google fan and follower for years. This is not an option for my and what I believe Google to be.
Google, I must now say goodbye. It has been good.
Google, you stated that your joint press release with Version was "only the beginning of the discussion".
ReplyDeleteIt's not your place, nor Verizon's nor any commercial entity's, to claim that you represent the public interest in any discussion of public policy.
In short, shut up, sit down and think about what you can do to earn back some of the good will you squandered in the past few days with your ill-considered pandering.
The old Google would have been horrified to have their opinions lauded by oligopolies like Verizon and AT&T.
What's Google going to do next, convince us that black is white and up is down?
ReplyDeleteI'm ditching Google ASAP.
Maybe your definition of 'selling out' is different from mine.
ReplyDeleteTalking the talk but not walking the walk. Comes down to money. Why a public company can't be 'good' - sorta creates a conflict of interest doesn't it?
I am disappointed.
See a future where I can only watch youtube on Verizon and Update my Yahoo Fantasy sports on T-Mobile.
A firm that truly believed in Net Neutrality would push the agenda forward regardless of the "political realities" (namely the corruption of the government which exists at all levels and the ignorance of the population). Likewise, saying that the wireless market is not as competitive as this post would imply either and it ignores the fact that net neutrality should be enforced regardless of how competitive a market is or is not.
ReplyDeletePerhaps this agreement will not set the law, but you cannot deny that this has set a dangerous precedent and that it may heavily influence any laws passed by the US Congress.
I have had great respect for Google in that past as a company that claimed to be a firm that stood for profit with principle, that advocated the "don't be evil" principle, and that behaved unlike the typical behaviour of other firms. Increasingly, I wonder if my respect has been misplaced and that Google is just another corporation.
Beyond that, look at the comments here. Google's image is being damaged to many people here. Your honesty, your integrity, and your credibility as a firm, are now questionable rather than credible. This deal with Verizon may seem great in the short run for Google, but one wonders what could happen in the long run.
In my opinion, Google just became evil. Anything but wide-open, unregulated Internet promises hordes of bean counters, lawyers, and spin doctors who will wring the life out of the Internet as we know it.
ReplyDeleteExpect this signpost:
"All traffic is equal. Some traffic is more equal than other."
Google, we are disappointed in you. The Google of 2007 would not approve either. This proposal is about making money.
ReplyDeleteThe internet we use today, which company came up with email? Which telco or cable company came up with http or the web browser?
A neutral network allowed individuals to come up with amazing technology. This network you are advocating for will allow consumers to buy whatever service their providers choose to offer. The public internet will suffer because access to the private services will be leveraged over public services. The app-ization of what should be browser access on mobile devices will further segregate content.
As a company that has benefited from open source technologies and neutral network access, you are creating a climate where the next Google will be impossible. I consider that "evil". Worthy of Microsoft, Verizon and Comcast but not the company I thought Google was.
Well lets hope the internet doesn't continue to develop as it is so it can outgrow this grossness
ReplyDeleteStolen without remorse from an insightful Slashdot comment:
ReplyDeleteMYTH: Google has gone evil.
FACT: It's true that Google has previously advocated for less evil. However in the spirit of unbridled greed, we have agreed to a proposal that is, in fact, quite evil, while Congress gives us tips on how to do it. Why? First, being good is pretty darn expensive. Second, because we have found that most people simply didn't know or care that we were being good. And third, because being evil is beginning to take off as a business model in this space.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe only saving grace here may be the fact that While this is not great at all it doesn't allow anything that isn't already legal.
ReplyDeleteRight now there is nothing stopping the enactment of a "Private" Internet in either domain.
But, Ultimately this is a failure on Google's part to be the Advocate we expect. We don't care about compromise , so many people compromise. we need stalwart advocates on our side.
not evil yet, but just like everyone else :/
If wireless is so competitive then why do I still need to pay $1000 per megabyte for text messages?
ReplyDeleteThis is just Sad.
ReplyDeleteA Large corporation in bed with another corporation trying to ensure it's consumers that their ideals do not outweigh their bottom line.
Just come out and say it. You sold out for the sake of furthering your competitive ground so that you can bring better products to your consumer. Instead of hiding behind mantra's like "don't be evil".
This is all about the future and the $$$ making possibilities for Google. Come on people, Google is a business, which if I am not mistaken, makes a whole bunch of money. They are setting theirselves up for some major long term profits (and possibly world domination).
ReplyDeleteWell, this made my decision much easier!
ReplyDeleteSent from my iPhone
This is just disappointing.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to "Don't be evil."?
Wireless and wired internet should be treated the same. That's all we ask. Equality for the people.
I've read the proposal, the criticism, and this response.
ReplyDeleteI belietve it's a crime to back anything other than a neutral network infrastructure for all players, on both the wireless and the wireless sides.
The google-verizon proposal will restrict the market. It doesn't serve the public interest.
What's amazing about all of these comments is that people seem to think that somehow Google can dictate what happens next.
ReplyDeleteThis was just a _proposal_; at the end of the day, it's Congress which passes the laws. Why does it have to be Congress? Because after FCC v. Comcast, the FCC has been stripped of the power to enforce any net neutrality.
What people are forgetting is that if AT&T had their way, there would be no net neutrality at all --- not for wired internet, not for wireless internet --- AT&T wants to be able to charge whatever it can get people to pay for arbitrary classes of Internet service levels and protocols to maximize its profit.
Politics is all about the art of the possible. Quite frankly, given the power of the telecom lobbyists, there is no guarantee even Google and Verizon's compromise is likely to be accepted by Congress. Congress could very well pass a law which says, "AT&T, go to town!"
How can a company be evil just for suggesting something which is better than the status quo, even if it isn't perfection?
-- Ted
The wireless networks should still be regulated.
ReplyDeleteA true compromise would be to regulate it less than hardline connections. Like the EPA has tiers of engine emission regulations (passenger car, semi-trucks, off highway industrial equipment). These have different emissions controls, the higher the volume, the tighter the control. As time goes on, they begin squeezing even tighter, so that heavy duty trucks have near zero emissions, and industrial equipment has about the same emissions as the trucks did 5 years ago.
So come down hard on the wired internet, and allow the wireless networks to come up to speed, BUT STILL be under the FCC's thumb, albeit lightly at first, but harder as more people start using it.
This vile spin that Google is trying to shill us makes me sick, it makes me second guess if I want to get a Droid phone next year or not.
Dearest Google,
ReplyDeleteYou were my hero. You were the good guys, the ones that could be big and not bad. You brought us open source phones and stood up to the Chinese government when they censored internet content.
What happened? How could you do this to us?
You forfeit net neutrality for wireless networks. Not too long from now the wireless internet may constitute the majority of the internet. You prescribe a $2 million fine for breaking these rules, but that's a rounding error on Verizon's balance sheet.
I trusted you. You lied.
Google is telling us that this was the best deal they could get, so they took it. But maybe they were second-guessing, and underestimating, the degree to which the public would fight with them for this issue, then. They shouldn't have done this in a back room without soliciting public input.
ReplyDeleteThey also point out that this proposal does not eliminate any existing protections, but just nails down the wired Internet protections in a way that they were not nailed down before.
That is formally true. But, you have to believe that there's a reason that the wireless Internet is not nailed down in this proposal. Once you have a proposal, then what's left out is also part of the package. Sins of omission become de facto sins of commission.
The argument about specialized services is also formally true; they cannot duplicate services that are on the wired Internet. But what if 90 percent of the public likes the new services and spends most of its time using them? Even if the old Internet is still working fine, it may languish under those conditions, and the new services will no longer be democratically available to all content providers.
For example, what if there is a new spontaneous video conferencing service that allows hundreds of people to spontaneously swarm into a conference room on a social networking site to have a virtual meeting about any topic of interest, and see one another as they speak? And say that democracynow.org can't afford the bandwidth for that, but CNN can? Won't that damage our democracy?
No, this is a bad arrangement. And yes, we should be lobbying government now to take this proposal two steps further to nail down the wireless and future Net.
An Internet divided against itself cannot stand. And we won't stand for it, either.
The question is, Google, what do you stand for?
Google needs to summarize their position; but they haven't, so I will try.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me, they're trying to say "wireline Internet should be forcibly open, and the FCC and Congress should establish regulations to ensure it; but we think industry competition in the wireless market is sufficient to protect neutrality in that space, at least for now."
I disagree with the conclusion, but I don't think it's unreasonable or evil.
The wireless exemptions are there because Verizon (and all the other wireless providers) have no clue how to be competitive other than by offering exclusives in the form of Verizon-only phones or Verizon-only content services. If you could buy any phone, put it on any network and get content from anyone, they'd be screwed, because then they'd have to actually compete by having the best network and/or best customer service, and both of those things cut into the bottom line. Oh, the humanity.
ReplyDeleteTotally disappointed in Google!
ReplyDeleteNet Neutrality allowed Google to compete on a leveled playing field against the incumbents in the early 2000's(Yahoo!, Altavista, etc.) and beat them based on innovation.
Now winners on the wireless Internet will be determined by the amount of money paid to the network operators and not the level of innovation.
It seems that Google is turning into the new Microsoft.
You know that scene in Animal Farm where the pigs change the sign from "four legs good, two legs bad" to "four legs good, two legs better"? This is that scene, and Google are the pigs.
ReplyDeleteOh goodie, another dose of Google explaining how they know best, and we should all just shut up and take it.
ReplyDeleteGet over yourself, Google. You were the hotness for awhile, but your time in the sun is coming to an end. You got too big, too rich, and too egotistical.
You sold out to Verizon, and in the process, you spit all over every user who has ever used any of your services.
May your death as a company come swiftly, so we don't have to put up with your BS backroom deals much longer.
Quoted from slashdot comments on re: this blog
ReplyDeleteMYTH: Google has gone evil. FACT: It's true that Google has previously advocated for less evil. However in the spirit of unbridled greed, we have agreed to a proposal that is, in fact, quite evil, while Congress gives us tips on how to do it. Why? First, being good is pretty darn expensive. Second, because we have found that most people simply didn't know or care that we were being good. And third, because being evil is beginning to take off as a business model in this space.
Some interesting responses here and elsewhere.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.publicknowledge.org/public-knowledge-says-verizon-google-agreement-not
http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/theres-only-one-internet
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/08/google-verizon-netneutrality
http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/08/a-paper-trail-of-betrayal-googles-net-neutrality-collapse.ars
Google, I really thought you would stand up for network neutrality. You did sell out, you compromised. It's sad, but true. There is nothing written in stone. You have the chance to have network neutrality written into law, but you sleep with the devil instead to line your pockets. Thanks for all your help.
ReplyDeleteWow, F*^k you Google and Verizon. I can't imagine a more terrible idea than allowing two mega corporations to propose legislation the basically benefits themselves. It isn't even a parlay for other telecoms, it's just Google and Verizon giving themselves reach arounds. We are all to blame, allowing these consolidated monopolies to develop online. Everything written here will be twisted or totally reagaped. You can't trust a corporation at all.
ReplyDeleteThey admit in the first paragraph, this isn't a perfect idea. Fine, then don't propose it until it is. What a bunch of douchbags.
Don't forget that Google has been caught stealing wireless networks data with their "SteetView" Cam Cars...
ReplyDeleteDisappointing, but not surprising. Say goodbye to innovation and hello to commercialization. Where should I send the buck to in order to see a wiki article? Or, should I just post my CC number here and let the world start charging for my merely existing?
ReplyDeleteAHHHH!!!
When Microsoft started being evil their reputation was gone in 3 years.. FOR EVER. No way back anymore out of the gutter.
ReplyDeleteGoogle just turned evil and is cashing out, no matter how you spin it. This keeps growing. It's time to fire Eric, listen to Sergei and put him in charge and repent.
I have switched my search over to Bing (and was pleasantly surprised) and will stay there until that happens.
Google's popularity is aided immensely by the feel-good approach they use to avoid being the bloodsucking corporation that everyone hates. This is the turning point where Google goes from "charging what is necessary to be a business" to "screwing consumers until they reach the maximum profit point on the curve between customers leaving from hatred and those remaining paying enough to cover the losses". I'm disappointed, but not surprised.
ReplyDeleteDon't be evil. (But if you are, claim you're actually being good and anyone who says different is wrong.)
ReplyDelete