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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Palm trees and 8
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.