Google Responds To Net Neutrality Reviews 265
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.'"
Strange rebuttal (Score:5, Insightful)
That FACT looks like a plain confirmation of the alleged MYTH.
Re:competitive? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Still has the important part (Score:3, Insightful)
Compromise (Score:5, Insightful)
they picked ONE partner (Score:3, Insightful)
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'.
Re:competitive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:question (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Still has the important part (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Oh no (Score:2, Insightful)
They must be evil now.
Not too evil (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Credit Google for Being Open (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I see the meme but not the evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
They lost me at this part (Score:1, Insightful)
"At the same time, the FCC would be prohibited from imposing regulations on the Internet itself."
That is just corporate double-speak making it sound like the FCC would be doing something onerous if it did that. It's like blaming the teacher on the school grounds who is trying to stop the bully from pummeling the nerd. It's just like Microsoft's double-speak where crap like OOXML is promoted because it gives "choice." It's just like anti-GPL language criticizing the GPL for restricting freedom (because the GPL forces sharing to be permitted).
Google, this year you not only jumped the shark, you ate the whole shark. Between Buzz privacy missteps, your awful privacy-eating revision of Google News, and now this evil proposal, here, have an EVIL mirror, and look in it.
I don't know what the hell has suddenly gone wrong with your company, but you should do some serious soul-searching and now fix it. Mr. Brin, where the hell are you? Google had it all in your hands and now you're losing it. Step in and stop this crap.
Re:I see the meme but not the evidence (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought I was illustrating the answer: dishonesty is evil. A FACT that confirms your MYTH section, but confusingly, is dishonest. Advocating for wireline net neutrality is not evil, but Google is now advocating for NO net neutrality for wireless, reversing their previous position.
Re:I see the meme but not the evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
We already saw what happened when they gave cable companies special exceptions to the law by classifying them as an Information Service [fcc.gov]. 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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you mean this?
I don't see dishonesty. If there is no net neutrality for wireless now, how can it be eliminated?
Re:Strange rebuttal (Score:2, Insightful)
Your argument only holds water if you believe that they should promise limitless access to the network to each individual user. If you read the terms of service that go with their broadband plans they've actually been quite upfront about the whole thing.
Re:I see the meme but not the evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Strange rebuttal (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Credit Google for Being Open (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:I see the meme but not the evidence (Score:1, Insightful)
If the only thing EVIL about google is the wording of some PR then I'd say they must be the most moral company around.
Seriously, get some perspective, dude.
Re:Strange rebuttal (Score:4, Insightful)
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:competitive? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Dishonesty is evil. Google is backtracking from it's previous support of wireless network neutrality and attempting to obfuscate that decision with weasel wording.
Re:Strange rebuttal (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [startribune.com]
Common Carrier (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't understand why common carrier status is not fundamental to this debate. The way I understand it, common carrier status means that a company provides a transportation service to the public and is shielded from liability for the actions of their customers because of the dual facts that the service is essential to modern life and that the company is technically unable to adequately control that customer behavior. That's why airlines aren't liable when terrorists use their planes to destroy skyscrapers.
If major telecoms specifically want to "shape" internet traffic, they are explicitly acknowledging that they are capable and willing (and eager!) to control the actions of their customers. If that is the case, then it becomes legally incumbent upon them to do what they can to stop illegal behavior. What I'm talking about is filesharing: if telecoms are capable of stopping illegal filesharing, then they are legally required to do so, since common carrier status no longer applies to them.
The problem with that reasoning is that it would open the telecoms to gigantic liability, presumably much larger than the extra money they might squeeze out of, say, Google, to make its packets travel faster. And also presumably, the telecoms are run by crafty people with competent lawyers who have thought all this through, and know what they are talking about much better than I do. So, I know my legal reasoning must be wrong, but I don't know where.
Read the rest of it. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:In other words (Score:3, Insightful)
Growing competition? Today the US has 3 wireless carriers: Sprint, AT&T, Verizon. A few years ago, there were 4: Cingular. All that is happening now is that the wireless carriers are selling service to subsidiaries who rebrand the service and resell it (Boost, Virgin, Net10, Tracfone...) so that it *appears* that there is more competition while the same 3 companies retain control.
Re:question (Score:2, Insightful)
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 [fcc.gov]": 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.