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.'"
Programmers Humour (Score:3, Interesting)
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 [23andme.com]" 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!
Re:Who is responsible for limiting my cable choice (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:they picked ONE partner (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually I would view this proposal much worse if it did involve more than 1 carrier. It would signal that Google was openly and blatantly moving toward a monopoly position as a internet media producer, where Google would have negotiated a bandwidth advantage over any of its competitors. This is a huge red flag that signals that Google sees it acquired enough market and influence covertly that it now can make bolder moves to strengthen its market position.
What is meant by "Reasonable Network management" and is it coincidental that wireless networks were exempted and Google is striving to be the largest presence on the wireless networks with its Android based handsets.
Competition (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:competitive? (Score:1, Interesting)
Wired internet offerings in the US are a bit rubbish when compared to most other countries. We have countless ISPs in the UK which has helped to keep the cost of household internet access competitive. It's a shame that the industry is dominated by just a couple of providers in the US. That should really be opened up. When Google says that wireless internet is much more competitive and therefore should be exempt from the same net neutrality rules, they should really be saying that wired internet services should be opened up to further competition.
Re:I see the meme but not the evidence (Score:3, Interesting)
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."
Re:I see the meme but not the evidence (Score:4, Interesting)
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".
More Google Spin. Fact: Google is deceptive. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Translation (Score:3, Interesting)
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".