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."
You aren't speeding some traffic up, you're slowing the rest down.
They realized they could make money on this internet thing.
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 !
Well, the internet was pretty cool while it lasted.
Is there anything excessive greed can't ruin?
It always happens this way. Big corporations with the big money eat the small companies. If you can not afford to pay for driving on the highway, you have to drive on the second class roads. Same for the Internet - the big corporations now can have fast servers, with fast speeds, while the small business and individuals can not afford speed, offering slower services. Nothing new under the sun.
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.
Google do not make all the worlds rules. One thing they are good at is adapting to them and trying to make the best out of bad situations. Google had hoped for legislation forbidding deals like these but when the politicians dont dare, google adapts.
HTTP/1.1 400
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.
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.
Actually, NYT got this story very wrong, according to cnet:
Google do not make all the worlds rules. One thing they are good at is adapting to them and trying to make the best out of bad situations. Google had hoped for legislation forbidding deals like these but when the politicians dont dare, google adapts.
Google has enough market power to effectively set the rules.
If Google said "We will no longer serve any Google content to any ISP which violates Net Neutrality", the debate would basically be over. You wouldn't even need any government regulation.
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
Oh the poor stupid fucking cunts. don't they realise that this will end up with everything being charged commercially to the consumer which will totally wipe out their busines model?
That fits. The mobile providers are terrified of being seen as mere data carriers, because it would disassociate their one real asset - phone numbers - from their network. Currently you can only reach a phone number on their network, via their network (or via a roaming agreement). Switching your phone number to another network is a pain in the ass.
Remove that anchor, and customers will be free to migrate from one network service to another. Which means they would have to operate on their merits, which they really don't want to have to do.
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!)
The agreement means that Verizon won't be able to give their own video downloads an advantage like you describe.
In what way do you believe that your scenario (giving Verizon PPV an advantage over other video services like YouTube) helps Google make more money?
Very poorly thought-out troll. No cookie for you.
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
What about your atss?
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Google has enough market power to effectively set the rules.
Despite its market power, Google does NOT control the food chain.
If 10 major ISPs decide tomorrow to do a "little favor" to Bing (God forbid), this would immediately and effectively hurt Google - massively.
It is certainly unlikely, but not impossible.
"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong." (Oscar Wilde)
I would suggest the sun but I wouldn't want them to see that as a challenge....
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.
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. As far as end users of the highways, its not a valid analogy.
Perhaps its time to declare the networks a public resource before its too late.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I would suggest the sun
Too late. Ask Oracle about that one.
My blog
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!
How is this evil? Seriously, two companies partner to provide better service to their mutual customers and you consider it evil? How about when AAA teams up with hotel chains to give me a discount, is that evil too? Or, when AAA partners with towing companies to ensure I am towed within a certain period of time (a form of tow truck QOS), is that evil? Google wants to provide a better service to it's customers/users - when did that become evil?
Ken
Yes, you can complain to the multi-billion dollar corporation and they will change their plans just for you, give up their ill-gotten gains, because you're just THAT special.
As far as switching providers... maybe you're not one of the millions of Americans without much choice.
Maybe you actually have the option to move from Verizon, who is deliberately slowing down their competition... to your cable company... who is deliberately slowing down their competition.
The problem is that PIPELINE companies are allowed to be CONTENT companies and then now want to disadvantage other companies dependent on that pipeline.
Requiring one company to serve another without obstacle is ludicrous? Wrong, shithead, it's NORMAL, it's the LAW for example in the case of phone companies. They are required to allow competing long distance carriers to use the lines to your house without degradation... have been for decades... and more recently, were forced to allow competing LOCAL carriers to use their lines without degradation.
The result? Lower long distance prices, lower local call prices. More innovation. AT&T was essentially a monopoly, and breaking it up and forcing carriers to allow other companies equal access helped serve the public good.
You know what other effect it had?
Why, it created the FUCKING INTERNET as we know it - public access to it, that is.
Started with Carterphone, then Sprint. Govt. intervened to force AT&T to allow competing equipment to use its lines. Before this, the only plans for internet like systems were totally closed, corporate controlled lame-assed useless teletext plans that were delayed, years in the future. AT&T had no real plans. Cable companies had the idiotic Qube, for example.
What happened when anyone could use the lines for whatever, connect any equipment, without restriction, without degradation or prioritization?
MODEMS happened. The public embrace of the internet happened. There would BE no web you're using today if the government hadn't intervened and FORCED a company to allow equal access to its lines.
Government regulation of what are essentially monopolies or common carriers prevents total monopoly, consolidation, reduction of choice, services and quality, and massive price gouging, despite what your free market religion tells you.
How did the government deregulation of the financial industry work out, huh?
This space available.
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.
Wait we have 10 major ISP's? Hold the phone. If we did we might actually have competitive broadband and make this whole 'net neutrality' issue moot.
Not if there's any truth the idea that google is the new microsoft.
You must be new here. Apple is the New Microsoft(TM).
And Google just became the new Level3. Let's hope Microsoft becomes the new Cogent.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
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.
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
Do you remember when the millimeter wave full-body scans weren't going to be recorded? But now they routinely are? Remember when seatbelt laws would only be enforced in conjunction with another type of violation, but now they are an arrestable violation all on its own? Maybe you don't remember these things, but I do, with countless other examples I could name, I see a trend....
If it's possible, they'll do it and they already have (Comcast vs Torrents, anyone?) and the only reason they don't do it more is because people got pissy about it. We need to get pissy about this, too. Somehow, despite lacking all these vital QoS rules, the Internet has grown to become the dominant global information network, winning out over many other networks having such things as QoS enforcement. (EG: Proprietary ATM networks, etc)
Sorry, but I like my Internet the way it is, spam and all. It really needs to be nothing more than a Network of Endpoints all sharing equivalent potential value. Let people decide what's valuable and what's not.
We need to be pissy about this issue.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
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
I wouldn't despair yet.
Various State Governments still hold the monopoly licenses for Verizon, Comcast, and others. That gives them power to regulate and enforce net neutrality, or else revoke said license and give it to somebody else.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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
Reminds me of a meeting when I worked at my university's IT department. Bandwidth was limited and they considered blocking pornography.
I told them I knew of a solution that would make everyone happy - host our own pr0n server!
It didn't happen.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, 10. That's binary 10 of course!