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.
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.
Well, the internet was pretty cool while it lasted.
Is there anything excessive greed can't ruin?
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."
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
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.
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.
I would suggest the sun
Too late. Ask Oracle about that one.
My blog
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.
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