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."
What ever happened to Do No Evil
You aren't speeding some traffic up, you're slowing the rest down.
So long as there is a healthy amount of cash to go with it, Google will be a proponent of anything you like.
Their motto has been thrown down the drain with the recent press releases, media coverage, and acquisitions. It's almost as if they're no longer the original company with their great philosophies.
:/
1. Investment in Zynga, a company who's CEO admitted to using forms of fraud to ensure the success of his company.
2. Acquisition of Slide, another company whose success is mostly based upon their acknowledged violation of MySpace's Terms of Service.
3. Discontinuation of Google Wave, a product which despite relatively low adoption levels, is very powerful and useful for many users. It's basically as awesome as GMail, but for a more niche market.
4. Now, (even though talks began 10 months ago) an agreement which undermines Net Neutrality... not by lobbying against it, not by crossing their arms regarding the issue, but by planning to make an agreement between another private company, as if the Internet were owned by them (Google)?
I'm dumbfounded. Simply dumbfounded.
I've sincerely been a Google supporter since a little kid, and loved their products, services, and philosophies... and for most of this time, I ignored most critics, since Google actually kept doing good for the most part. Now, all of that has changed. I'm very disappointed in Google.
The part of me that really just wants Google to be doing the right thing after all really wants me to believe that they're doing this to spark outrage to make net neutrality a law. The rest of me is disappointed until that suspicion gets confirmed.
I really wanted to change my sig to something witty, but all I could come up with is this.
Google is for net neutrality when the lack of net neutrality could cost Google money.
Google is against net neutrality when the lack of net neutrality could gain Google money.
In related news, Google is a publicly-traded for-profit corporation with an eye on the bottom line. Get used to it.
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
you're a very bad Google and I'm gonna wish you into the corn field !
The tone of the article suggests that the FCC's ability to maintain Net Neutrality is on life support. It appears as though Google have seen the writing on the wall and are trying to "stake ground" under what they probably see as a new business landscape.
According to this Bloomberg story, the New York Times is only accurate in that Google and Verizon negotiated net neutrality on everything but mobile networks, and hence Verizon will be allowed to do traffic discrimination on those lines.
But I find it a little odd to write up that story as "Google and Verizon negotiating an end to net neutrality" rather than as "Google and Verizon negotiating to preserve net neutrality on most internet connections."
I used Bing once a few days ago, because Google kept giving me shit results. I felt dirty, like noob searching for the very first time. But then a series of conflicting emotions went through me as Bing gave me better results than google.
Yeah, let that sink in.
I still don't know how to feel about that day. I figure that I'll pretend it never happened, just like that gay experience that I never had.
Looks like all us 'little' sites are getting booted off the internet soon.
Oh well. It was a good run, right guys?
Disruptive technology. Doesn't preserve the existing power structure. The only marvel is that it has lasted this long.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The internet-subscriber is already paying for his/her content delivery. And web-site owners are paying as well for the upload of data. We are already paying twice. And now this...
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
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...
What about your atss?
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
IMHO, not only has Verizon become an evil glutton when it's come to data plans in combination with certain (all) phones which are marketed almost as bad as laptops and PCs are now-a-days (e.g. "Multimedia", "Great for checking e-mail and updating your twit-face account"), but THEN want to add tiered broadband access constraints at the user for something they *always* got, and now start referring to some access as *premium*? This shit is out of control.
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.
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.
Verizon is crippling Youtube bandwidth on FIOS.
Verizon is guilty of extortion. They are holding the user hostage, and forcing google to pay up to protect their brand.
Meanwhile, the FIOS subscriber, such as myself, finally have an answer as to why Youtube hasnt fucking worked for a year now.
Verizon FIOS... has just lost its sainthood.
If you value youtube, and use it... Do not subscribe to Verizon FIOS.
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."
If I buy a Verizon phone, everything except Google (and a few other wealthy content providers) is slower. If I buy an AT&T phone, its all a delivered at 'best effort' speeds. I wonder which phone I should buy?
Google is shooting themselves in the foot here. Their success as a search engine hinges on my ability to find some other web site using their service. If they buy their way to the top of the heap, so to speak, they are screwing over the content providers upon which they rely. Sure, the search loads faster. But my overall time spent staring at the screen is the same, since they slowed down the site I was interested in.
If this is due to coercion on Verizon's part, I'd be in favor of granting Google execs immunity for their testimony before Congress or to the Justice epartment.
Have gnu, will travel.
Quite frankly, I would leave any carrier that "speeds up" some special content. Why? Because do the math, how can they make it go faster? By raising the speed of light? Maybe they will bury a few thousand miles of fibre, just for Google? Come on! The only way they can make people who paid for the priviledge faster is by slowing everything else down.
They can do that directly (e.g. slow it down unless it is paid for) or indirectly (e.g. by using QOS and other routing tricks), but what happens is that they don't provide the best possible service anymore, unless someone pays extra for it.
Thank you, but no. I'd change to a carrier that provides the best possible service because as a subscriber I am already paying for that. So, Verizon and to all you other marketing monkeys at other carriers thinking about a stunt like that: How about I don't pay you my subscription fee as quickly as I used to, unless of course you book the special "speedy delivery" service? I'm sure my bank would love a piece of the action as well.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Let me see if I understood. You were looking for a gay experience in Google but couldn't find it, so you used Bing?
Hyper-reporting and politics did billions of dollars in damage to the tourism industries all through the Gulf states. The oil did very little damage. The administration needs to be apologizing to the thousands they put out of work for their illegal moratorium on drilling. But that is off-topic.