Google Responds To Net Neutrality Reviews

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Google has written a defense of their joint Net Neutrality proposal with Verizon, responding to criticism like the EFF's recent review. Google presents its arguments as a list of myths and facts, but too many of them look like this one: 'MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless. FACT: It's true that Google previously has advocated for certain openness safeguards to be applied in a similar fashion to what would be applied to wireline services. However, in the spirit of compromise, we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye. Why? First, the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from. Second, because wireless networks employ airwaves, rather than wires, and share constrained capacity among many users, these carriers need to manage their networks more actively. Third, network and device openness is now beginning to take off as a significant business model in this space.'"

Comments

Strange rebuttal

[Anonymous Coward]

That FACT looks like a plain confirmation of the alleged MYTH.

Re:Strange rebuttal

[spun]

That is utter bullshit. Free from regulation does mean no network neutrality. Network neutrality is only enforceable through regulation. Without regulation, service providers can easily lie about whether they are actually providing a neutral network. You are not saying we will have neutral wireless networks, you are saying we don't need neutrality on wireless networks because we have competition. Although I disagree, that is still a clear cut position. Google is NOT presenting their walk-back from wireless net neutrality in the same clear fashion, they are obscuring it deliberately.

There is little or no competition in wireless, anyhow.

Re:Strange rebuttal

[DJRumpy]

I don't have to 'believe' it. They DID promise 'unlimited' access. Even now, they continue to offer 'unlimited access' with restrictions in small print. You consider that transparent?

Your idea of 'quite upfront' and mine apparently differ somewhat.

The very idea of Net Neutrality would force competition into the telecom space because it would force more business to compete in that space. By allowing people like AT&T and Verizon to take an unlimited number of customers, while continuously lowering the bar, they stifle competition just as effectively as a monopoly.

Were they not allowed to take unlimited numbers of customers, sheer need would promote new entries into that space.

They abuse the digital medium simply because it's less noticeable. An airline can't overbook as it would be immediately obvious to it's customers if they did so. It is not so obvious for a telecom provider, and fighting net neutrality will just keep that as the status quo.

Re:Strange rebuttal

[DJRumpy]

Actually I do know what I'm talking about. Airlines can overbook, but only very small amounts to account for cancellations, late passengers, and typical overhead. If they exceed that, and bump too many customers, they get heavy fines.

http://www.startribune.com/business/99267109.html

Re:competitive?

[mcgrew]

Um... what? Wireless is MORE competitive? Do they live in the US?

Well, my wired choices are, um, Comcast. With wireless I can pick Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Boost, Net 10, or about a dozen more. Comcast has no competetion, Verizon does. How many wired internet choices do YOU have?

Credit Google for Being Open

[steve_thatguy]

I'll give credit to Google for at least responding directly to their detractors and explaining their position in what seems like an honest and open way (you'd think if they were trying to sell us on swampland that they wouldn't use the word "compromise"). In spite of everyone's criticisms I still think Google adheres to the "don't be evil" mantra as well as they possibly can.

That said they should've stuck to their guns. Their new Net Neutrality position sucks.

Re:Credit Google for Being Open

[betterunixthanunix]

Sorry, but with the way mobile internet access is growing, any compromise that allows non-neutral mobile internet is very bad. If Google wanted to "not be evil," they would have gotten up and left the room if Verizon refused to budge on that issue.

Re:Credit Google for Being Open

[Quaz and Wally]

You realize that non-neutral mobile is allowed right now, yes? Most carriers won't let you do any peer to peer sharing. This is right from AT&T's terms of service.

This means, by way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file sharing services, redirecting television signals for viewing on Personal Computers, web broadcasting, and/or for the operation of servers, telemetry devices and/or Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition devices is prohibited.

You guys act like Google is opening the flood gates to ISP abuse, when they are really just not touching the wireless ones. And they have decent reason for it too considering wireless infrastructure limitations.

Compromise

[esocid]

Why does Google find it necessary to compromise? They carry pretty heavy clout on their own without having to cave.

Re:competitive?

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

You can pick amongst half a dozen wireless providers who all somehow have the exact same pricing scheme and collude with each other (SMS pricing, etc.). A choice between a turd sandwich, and crap on a panini isn't really a choice.

Re:Still has the important part

[betterunixthanunix]

If no company ever wants to offer a neutral wireless network to play on

I would call such a situation a massive policy failure, especially considering how many people now use wireless broadband and how the market is expected to grow over the next few years. Right now is the time to act on wireless network neutrality, not 5 years from now when the wireless carriers have established non-neutral networks.

Re:I see the meme but not the evidence

[fictionpuss]

You failed to answer the question.

Why is it evil to try a path to enshrine net neutrality into law for wireline traffic? The only argument I've seen - that they should also try (and fail) to get consensus for net neutrality for wireless networks _now_, seems naive to me.

I don't see anything in the proposal which would prevent future legislation for wireless networks.

Re:I see the meme but not the evidence

[DJRumpy]

We already saw what happened when they gave cable companies special exceptions to the law by classifying them as an Information Service. Look where it's gotten us. Now the FCC has to try to get them re-classified under the original rules just to enforce fairness.

Although I would expect to see Joe Plumber bilked into rejecting Net Neutrality, I never expected to see such on Slashdot. If a Telecom provider must throttle traffic on their network in order to keep things running, then they should either throttle all traffic evenly, or they should stop overselling their capacity to try to wring every last penny out for their CEO's to the detriment of any customers foolish enough to use their service.

If the US was competitive in the broadband market rather then forced into sponsored monopolies, we would have far more options for providers, better pricing, 100+ Mb lines would be common, and these discussions about lack of available bandwidth would be far less worrisome.

Re:I see the meme but not the evidence

[fictionpuss]

Do you mean this?

MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless.

FACT: It’s true that Google previously has advocated for certain openness safeguards to be applied in a similar fashion to what would be applied to wireline services. However, in the spirit of compromise, we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye.

I don't see dishonesty. If there is no net neutrality for wireless now, how can it be eliminated?

Re:I see the meme but not the evidence

[spun]

Your response is exactly the kind of dishonesty I'm talking about. There is no net neutrality anywhere, yet. So nothing could 'eliminate' net neutrality. But Google apparently wants less careful readers to come away from that paragraph with the idea that Google still supports wireless net neutrality, which they do not.

Get it? Google used to support wireless net neutrality. Now they don't Their Myth/Fact section is designed to obscure this issue.

Basically, you are saying that this section actually parses to this: MYTH: this proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless. FACT: there is no network neutrality to eliminate, so stop whining already!

That is also dishonest and evil.

Re:competitive?

[TheGratefulNet]

ALL of the US carriers charge for SMS on reception. they all colluded to do this.

in europe, you only pay for messages you SEND.

duh.

clear proof that the carriers can't be trusted. they DO collude and its never to the consumers' benefit.

add to the insult that SMS is basically FREE to the carriers since its just extra overhead on all wireless data packet exchanges. no extra cost to them but they ALL collude to charge us for sending AND receiving.

there is no free market for data in the US. this olig. needs to be totally broken up and redone.

wireless is one thing that has this chance: there is no infrastructure or right of way to have to deal with (other than a few towers here and there). the fact that wireless is a new frontier and can be a 'game changer' is what scares the incumbents!

Re:I see the meme but not the evidence

[spun]

Dishonesty is evil. Google is backtracking from it's previous support of wireless network neutrality and attempting to obfuscate that decision with weasel wording.