Slashdot Mirror
Google and Verizon In Talks To Prioritize Traffic (Updated)
Nrbelex writes "Google and Verizon are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content's creators are willing to pay for the privilege. Any agreement between Verizon and Google could also upend the efforts of the Federal Communications Commission to assert its authority over broadband service, which was severely restricted by a federal appeals court decision in April. People close to the negotiations who were not authorized to speak publicly about them said an agreement could be reached as soon as next week. If completed, Google, whose Android operating system powers many Verizon wireless phones, would agree not to challenge Verizon's ability to manage its broadband Internet network as it pleased."
Update: 08/05 20:03 GMT by T :
nr3a1 writes with this informative update excerpted from Engadget: "Google's Public Policy Twitter account just belted out a denial of these claims, straight-up saying that the New York Times 'is wrong.' Here's the full tweet, which certainly makes us feel a bit more at ease. For now. '@NYTimes is wrong. We've not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet.' Verizon's now also issued a statement and, like Google, it's denying the claims in the original New York Times report."
Actually, NYT got this story very wrong, according to cnet:
Full disclosure, I work for Google. But I have no say in these kinds of things. Normally I wouldn't comment on such an article, but do I think it's enlightening to hear Google's side of the story. Therefore, here are CEO Eric Schmidt's recent comments on this topic:
"People get confused about Net neutrality," Schmidt said. "I want to make sure that everybody understands what we mean about it. What we mean is that if you have one data type, like video, you don't discriminate against one person's video in favor of another. It's OK to discriminate across different types...There is general agreement with Verizon and Google on this issue. The issues of wireless versus wireline get very messy...and that's really an FCC issue not a Google issue."
Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-20012723-56.html?tag=mncol;txt
Basically, it's important for VOIP to have a certain quality of service for clear voice calls, but different QOS rules may make sense for other data types. For example, downloading raw data files can be bursty. Precaching future web pages or Javascripts doesn't have to always succeed. But, "you don't discriminate against one person's [data] in favor of another".
my blog
Its called number porting and happens all the time. Here in the EU operators are required to service a porting within a month - in the coming years we will be required to service them within 1 week, then 1 day and finally within the hour of a request, so no, it wont be a pain in the ass.
Obviously, if you do something silly and handcuff yourself to a contract for 2 years, then yes it's a pain, but you lie as you lay your bed.
Eveyone keeps quoting the "do not evil" mantra, but we have something a lot more solid on Google's own site:
Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody - no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional - has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay.
Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight. Please call your representative (202-224-3121) and let your voice be heard.
Thanks for your time, your concern and your support.
Eric Schmidt
Source: http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html
I'm not taking sides, and the details have not been announced, but it better not go 180 on the statement above.
By the way, the official press releases from the companies are set to be out on bad-news-Friday. Not a good sign...
Switching your phone number to another network is a pain in the ass.
What? Switching a phone number to another network is easy as pie. People do it all the time. Porting your number is a standard part of the procedure for getting a new subscription. At least in the EU. Here, phone companies are required to support it, and it's a good thing too.
The only way customers are bound to networks is through their contracts, and phone companies pull some weird shit to keep existing customers in.
I'm currently writing software for mobile phone contracts. It's ridiculous how many different kinds of discounts existing customers can get for renewing their contract. (Of course the discounts are optional. You don't get them automatically, but only when you're planning to leave. Don't forget to renew your contract every time it ends, or you'll be missing out on tons of discounts!)
Everything could be true in that article if they would have prefaced, "Google has made a deal to put Net Neutrality into practice right now for everything but mobile traffic." You are all being lied to by this article
Bravo slashdot. You made me panicked and then pissed off at your mods before breakfast.
We are already paying twice
Bingo. Remember, the old Bell system philosophy was that the phone company controlled all traffic on their networks, and charged everyone for everything that passed their network, under the protection of a government monopoly. They have been trying to recreate this for over two decades now, and preventing that is what the net neutrality fight is really about.
If Google was that brazen in attempting to give major ISPs marching orders, you would see all of the major players throttle their bandwidth and prioritize Yahoo and Bing just to make it clear that Google can't control them.
Phone companies are required by law in the US to move the phone number also. I don't think it's been a "pain in the ass" for like a decade to move the phone number to another network.
But there do seem to be a couple of loopholes around moving to subsidiary networks of the *same* network: e.g. Moving from Sprint to Boost looks like they might be able to give you a hard time.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I don't know where you live, but highways here aren't restricted by how much you. They are a public resource and encroachment by a company is a crime.
How about New York State Thruway? Or Ontario's 407ETR? These are toll roads... you don't pay, you take a slower route. The car analogy holds this time!
Verizon and Comcast and all the other ISPs which are also cable tv companies have video downloads and services completely separate from the Internet. So yes, they can set all video downloads on the Internet to download incredibly slowly, while their non-Internet video services are as speedy as ever.
I think you mean "Boiling Frog"...
No you wouldn't, see the Gulf of Mexico for details. Our politicians are bought, the future belongs to the corporations.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
CNET cites Bloomberg for their article. Almost everything I can find on the news sites so far directly points back to either the NYT article or the Bloomberg aticle which directly contradict each other. Until more information is known, I am inclined to believe Bloomberg over the NYT article because it paints a more realistic situation then what the NYT article does. In order for NYT to be correct, Google would have had to do a complete 180 on all the work they've done so far to push net neutrality. The Bloomberg article paints a much more rational picture of a compromise deal that at least ensures net neutrality on landlines.
pffft.. Don't think this isn't going to hurt you too. Look up UUNET's Autonomous Systems..
http://irl.cs.ucla.edu/topology/survey/
If it says "UUNET", "MCI", "Verizon Business", it's all controlled by Verizon. Check AS 701, 702, 703, etc.
They have backbone ASs around the world interconnecting everyone's ISPs.
Hell, do a trace from your desktop to your favorite sites.. If you see "UUNET" or "ALTER.NET" in your traces, you're riding UUNET.
Now think about these being tolls and you'll see that this affects just about everyone if it's allowed to happen.
Bad reporting is what happened. This story is not what the summary or article makes it out to be, see the links to cnet's take on the situation in one of the comments above.
Google is doing the exact opposite of "ending net neutrality". NYT seriously screwed up this time.
For a moment, I thought all hope was lost but, thankfully, they're still not evil.
Haven't you heard of solar power and cap-n-tax?
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Google has denied these claims:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2367436,00.asp
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9180192/Google_denies_talks_with_Verizon_to_end_Net_neutrality_
"The New York Times is quite simply wrong," wrote Mistique Cano, a Google spokesman, in an e-mail. "We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open Internet."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/05/gogle-denies-verizon-deal-net-neutrality
A Google spokeswoman told the Guardian: "The New York Times is quite simply wrong. We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open internet.
Verizon has also moved to dismiss the story. A company statement reads: "The NYT article regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken. It fundamentally misunderstands our purpose. As we said in our earlier FCC filing, our goal is an internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation. To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect."
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
Google have issued a response: http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=188249
Upsetting how quickly everyone is willing to jump on the "Google is evil" bandwagon and slander their name.
it's under construction
Not true. Google are always for net neutrality and this story was fake. http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=188249 [poynter.org]
it's under construction
From Google's twitter: "@NYTimes is wrong. We've not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet."
I don't know about other highways, but all those things are untrue of the highway 407 in Ontario.
There's a complicated pay structure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Highway_407#Tolls), which includes per-trip fees, distance fees that vary depending on which section of highway you're driving on and when you're driving on it (which is used as a surrogate for depending on traffic) and your vehicle weight and size (which is as close to bandwidth as you get on a highway), and whether you have a transponder or they had to go to the difficulty of reading your license plate from a camera snapshot.
So "you only pay once" is false, and you do pay a different amount depending on where you're travelling and with what and how much, and while the cities themselves aren't directly paying for extra vehicles, their residents are being charged more because their section of highway is considered higher traffic.
Switching your phone number to another network is a pain in the ass.
What? Switching a phone number to another network is easy as pie. People do it all the time. Porting your number is a standard part of the procedure for getting a new subscription. At least in the EU. Here, phone companies are required to support it, and it's a good thing too.
The only way customers are bound to networks is through their contracts, and phone companies pull some weird shit to keep existing customers in.
I'm currently writing software for mobile phone contracts. It's ridiculous how many different kinds of discounts existing customers can get for renewing their contract. (Of course the discounts are optional. You don't get them automatically, but only when you're planning to leave. Don't forget to renew your contract every time it ends, or you'll be missing out on tons of discounts!)
Switching numbers on wireless phones use to be impossible in the States. The wireless providers weren't required by law to allow people to port their numbers, so they didn't do it. If you wanted to keep your number, you effectively had to keep your wireless provider. That all changed a few years ago when the government extended phone number porting laws to the wireless providers. It had been like that for years on land lines.
Here in the US where the story is taking place (and where Verizon is actually a carrier as opposed to the EU where AFAIK they are not), porting a number is possible but is a pain in the ass. I know some of the snobs in the UE find this hard to believe, but the US is its own sovereign nation and has governing bodies and regulatory agencies both distinct from and operated differently from the EU. Technology is very little of the issue.
Take for example the issue my wife and I have with trying to get onto a family plan. I can port my number to her cell company, but I'd still need a separate plan. They can't combine a number with my area code on a plan with a number in her area code. Their people just haven't put the time into making it possible, even though the two area codes border one another. We could port her number to my cell provider, but then she'd lose the free calling to her large family and most of her hundreds of other contacts that she made when her provider dominated her area where she grew up.
Our solution so far has been to keep my cell phone number with my existing provider, which gives 3G coverage here but 2G where my wife is from and free calling to most of my family and friends and to keep her phone number with her existing provider which offers 3G where she's from but 2G here and free calling to most of her family and friends.
You're under the wrong impression. While there are different structures in different places, toll roads are often leased to corporations to operate and profit from. The idea is that theres a "cost saved" by the taxpayers not having to maintain the roads. I've never understood this, as the private corporations are able to make a profit (see I-80/90 in Indiana, operated by an Australian firm) despite having to maintain the roads. BTW, the police still have to enforce traffic laws themselves, and bear that cost, and EMS, well just say I wouldn't want to get in an accident on I-80/90. Since it's not a true "public" road, EMS charges as if they had to drive a 100s of miles long private driveway to get to you and charge accordingly (for all our European friends, you pay for EMS yourself in America and Insurance pays only what they want to pay no matter how much EMS charges you). What I do understand is that the State of Indiana received 3.8 billion dollars for the lease of the road from Macquarie; that makes it easier to keep the rust-belt economy from falling completely apart without having to raise direct taxes. Of course, that revenue is lost in the future, but the current politicians only care about, well, themselves. So really, this car analogy does hold together. Private firms got the government to build them something expensive. Since they maintain that thing they get to pretend they own it and profit at the public expense. What they paid the politicians for it is far below market value, but as long as the politicians get re-elected, they really don't give a shit what's good for their constituents. And to top it off, we all bend over and say "please sir, can I have some more?"