Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
That FACT looks like a plain confirmation of the alleged MYTH.
It looks like their position on enforcing NN over wireless networks is a "wait-and-see" approach since they suspect that we'll see competition growing between networks and platforms that could have the same effect as regulation. While one may disagree with the degree of competition that exists, it's not an entirely unreasonable position.
Fact: Yes we sold out, but we didn't sell that much...
I'm a popular stranger, I'm nobody famous, I'm a famous nobody.
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?
Free Martian Whores!
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.
The Google/Verizon proposal still keeps the transparency and disclosure requirements in place for wireless services. This is really the only part that's necessary to make sure I'm buying what I think I'm buying. If no company ever wants to offer a neutral wireless network to play on, then I'll just content myself with my wired connection and just use my phone to make calls.
Why does Google find it necessary to compromise? They carry pretty heavy clout on their own without having to cave.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
this says it all:
With that in mind, we decided to partner with a major broadband provider on the best policy solution we could devise together.
if they wanted to do this right, they'd partner with MORE than just 1 carrier.
that would, at least, give the appearance of impartiality.
bzzzt. sorry google, but you lost the PR war on this one. we can see thru your agenda, here. had you put together ALL the carriers, that would have been different; but you chose ONE of them.
sorry, but you don't deserve any 'credit' for being, well, just a business with busniness level self-interests and sweetheart deals with 'our select partners'.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I have to wonder if the founders of google have spent most of the last decade having laughing fits over their motto, which makes a promise through negation of a subjective term.
Do no evil.
What does that even mean? Oh, they're going to thump their chests toward China? (admittedly, that's more than most western governments are willing to do these days, but I digress...)
What about the company's mission statement:
To organize the world's information.
Well, it would be difficult to argue the case that this is, in and of itself, evil, but when you consider what "the world's information" encompases, and what controlling that means, it's hard to think otherwise.
Now, a little more on topic, it's clear that google's amassed an army of lawyers and PR Flacks to rival their army of programmers. Makes me wonder whether their business model / management style is just to ensure they are the employer for all the world's language masters - be it natural or artificial. But, hey - free webmail!
----
Not to be confused with Col.
Usually the cable companies make a deal with the city wherein the cable company lays the wire in exchange for an exclusivity contract (state sponsored monopoly) for a specified time period which the city can extend. Complaining to the city counsel or is your best bet as they usually make these determinations, but don't be surprised when these complaints fall on deaf ears as these contracts usually come with nice amenities for the people who negotiate them (read "free unlimited everything packages for the city counsel.")
-TheDawgLives suckitdown
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.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
I'm fairly pro the "a deal is a deal" view of things, but it's likely that a land line company would be running cables through public land, and the wireless companies route signal through public airspace.
They can, of course, be charged market rate for use of said airspace or land, but part of the price they pay can always be additional legal obligations.
What would Lemmy do?
Most places have a cable franchise agreement. Depending on where you live, this could be done at the town, region, city, or even state level. There's likely a "cable advisory board" or something similar... I served on one when living in Connecticut. If you're a cable customer your bill should include information about that group. If not, maybe just browse your local government website looking for that sort of information.
Be aware, though, that even when you contact them there's probably nothing they can do. Franchise agreements only come up for renewal every so often. If you're still in that area when it's up for renewal you'll have more luck, but that might just mean you'll be dealing with a new provider, not an additional one.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Google has proposed net neutrality legislation that gives the FCC authority to enforce net neutrality, and doesn't change anything with wireless internet other than require transparency. This will certainly be much worse than the existing net neutrality laws, which don't exist. Except for maybe the Comcast court decision.
They must be evil now.
MYTH: Google has gone evil. FACT: It's true that Google has previously advocated for less evil. However in the spirit of unbridled greed, we have agreed to a proposal that is, in fact, quite evil, while Congress gives us tips on how to do it. Why? First, being good is pretty darn expensive. Second, because we have found that most people simply didn't know or care that we were being good. And third, because being evil is beginning to take off as a business model in this space.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
First the Communist Party search "compromise", now the carrier traffic shaping "compromise". The road to hell is paved with compromises... Good luck cashing in while you can, Googlies, hustle while you can, get out while the getting is good. You had a good run, about the same as the average young and principled politician, I imagine.
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.
You can pick amongst half a dozen wireless providers who all somehow have the exact same pricing scheme
You are lying or misinformed. Verizon offers you "friends and family". AT&T offers rollover. Sprint offers 7pm nights and weekends. T-Mobile offers the cheapest plans in town. Those are just the big four carriers and the unique features that I can remember off the top of my head. The regional carriers all have different price plans, depending on what kind of service you need.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
First, the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from.
This assumes or implies that there's no collusion between providers, which seems to be wishful thinking at best. The fact that mobile rates in the US are substantially more than in many countries around the world, that subscribers are locked into contracts, that text messaging is *still* not a free or virtually free feature. AT&T effectively more than doubled its data plan prices -- from $30/5GB to $62.50/5GB ($25/4GB) -- and competitors are now "examining their pricing structures" as well. None of these appear to be indicators of a market with healthy competition.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Do you mean this?
I don't see dishonesty. If there is no net neutrality for wireless now, how can it be eliminated?
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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!
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Dishonesty is evil. Google is backtracking from it's previous support of wireless network neutrality and attempting to obfuscate that decision with weasel wording.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
So, to summarize for anyone else reading this thread, this is what just happened:
Google: "Lets force all data carriers to treat all internet traffic equally. It will greatly benefit consumers and, therefore, out business model. If we could get Verizon to back our plan, it would greatly further our cause. What say you Verizon?"
Verizon: "Well, that's gonna completely hose our wireless networks, but we'll support you on the wired front and get some PR brownie points."
Google: "Alright, fine. We'll take what we can get"
Google-Haters: "OMG! Google wants to eliminate net-neutrality on wireless networks!"
Google: "Hey! What are you talking about? There wasn't any net-neutrality to begin with, so we're not eliminating it.... we just agreed to not address it in this proposal in the spirit of compromise"
Spun: "durrrr... I have no reading comprehension skills and I hate google. Hmmm... I don't properly understand what I'm reading, but it sounds like google is lying! Evil! Evil, I say! Google is the Evilest Corporation on the face of the planet, because more poor reading comprehension skills tell me that they attempting to skirt around the issue."
This is akin to the following:
Google-placeholder (GP): "I want to buy this orphanage and the abandoned lot next to it so I can build a park there."
Verizon-placeholder (VP): "Well, I can't sell you the vacant lot because it'll kill me in taxes if I do, but I'll give you the orphanage, no problem"
GP: "Alright, we can always revisit the abandoned lot at a later date"
GP-Haters: "OMG! Google hates orphans and is gonna bulldoze their park!"
GP: "Hey! What are you talking about? There was never a park there to begin with! We got the orphanage, and we'll build them a park as soon as we can. Would you rather we had neither?"
Spun: "durrrr... I have no reading comprehension skills and I hate google. Hmmm... I don't properly understand what I'm reading, but it sounds like google is lying! Evil! Evil, I say! Google is the Evilest Corporation on the face of the planet, because more poor reading comprehension skills tell me that they attempting to skirt around the issue."
Web Design in Dallas
It might look like confirmation of the myth if you read only two of the four paragraphs. The rest of it was:
In our proposal, we agreed that the best first step is for wireless providers to be fully transparent with users about how network traffic is managed to avoid congestion, or prioritized for certain applications and content. Our proposal also asks the Federal government to monitor and report regularly on the state of the wireless broadband market. Importantly, Congress would always have the ability to step in and impose new safeguards on wireless broadband providers to protect consumers' interests.
It's also important to keep in mind that the future of wireless broadband increasingly will be found in the advanced, 4th generation (4G) networks now being constructed. Verizon will begin rolling out its 4G network this fall under openness license conditions that Google helped persuade the FCC to adopt. Clearwire is already providing 4G service in some markets, operating under a unique wholesale/openness business model. So consumers across the country are beginning to experience open Internet wireless platforms, which we hope will be enhanced and encouraged by our transparency proposal.
Let me translate that for you: "Our past efforts have opened a door towards network neutrality on wireless networks. The meaningful competition that remains in wireless service has done the same. We think it reasonable to see where those doors lead before asking Congress to force additional action. This is unlike wireline Internet where the unregulated trend has ended competition and is moving further from network neutrality."
I agree.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
I agree with you about the spin Google's putting on their decision.
But it seems to me that Google has seen the political forces arrayed against neutrality, have concluded they can't get everything they want given the current balance of power, and are thus proposing a compromise.
It may be a genuine offer of compromise, under the theory that half a loaf is better than none.
Or it may be a scheme to divide and conquer the telcos by differentiating between wired and wireless ISPs. It removes significant wireless players from opposing wired neutrality now. And if neutrality gets imposed on wired ISPs, and a couple years later everyone can see no catastrophe has occurred, that will make it far easier to then eliminate the "loophole" for wireless providers.
But either way, this doesn't seem "evil" so much as Google recognizing the reality that they have been unable to persuade enough legislators that net neutrality regulations are a good thing.
And that's all assuming that the net neutrality regulations will actually ensure neutrality. Given the history of the FCC - protecting incumbents from innovation or competition - I wouldn't bet on it. The guys with the expensive lobbyists tend to win even when they "lose".
Its time to switch from Google folks. I already did when this story broke.
You have to remember that the New York Times broke the story and then Google said they were in no such talks with Verizon that would end net neutrality. Then a couple days later, Google and Verizon come out with this plan for net neutrality. It just looks like Google and Verizon got caught and they came out in full spin mode.
So which is it Google? First werent in any talks with verizon... then 2 days later you announce a plan with verizon that you just claimed you never talked about with them?
The New York Times was right. Google and Verizon had to spin it as a pro net neutrality proposal because of the public reponse to the New York Times article.
It is time to switch from Google.
Switch to anything but Google. You make up your mind as to whom.... but Google is not our friend. Google is evil.
if they wanted to do this right, they'd partner with MORE than just 1 carrier.
Translation: "we bid on the VHF auction, which we need to reach all the homes, but Verizon bid more and we figured it would cost less to work with them than to outbid them".
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Is the infrastructure for the wireless services created without any government subsidy, government tax break, government money?
This question attempts to frame the issue in a way which doesn't reflect the circumstances. The FCC was established to oversee the entities which licensed portions of the "public airwaves": the airwaves as a resource are a commons, and the licensees are allowed to exploit this commons for profit as long as they don't abuse the privilege.
What Google and Verizon are trying to do is to take this commons and enclose it, making private property of the public resource.