Sure, Google has good, smart lawyers, but are they are sharp at figuring out what sort of evil loopholes weaselly telcom lawyers snuck in? Probably not as good at spotting it as they think they are, telcos have over a century of manipulating the legal system for profit.
Two internets? Another greedy corporate scheme. Google sold out. I used to like Google. I am tired of blood sucking corporations dictating government policy and shafting the people.
The fact that google comprimised its internet values is key. Just because something is hard, doesn't mean you need to comprimise. I also find it very naive that they really think its because of limited wireless spectrum that Verizion wanted to imposed "traffic shaping", QOS, filtering. Whatever you call it, its just new revenue stream they're looking for. With LTE and other 4G networks on the forefront, wireless is starting to surpass bandwidth for wired connections. Who knows the future of what new RF technologies they'll develop. UGH, so disappointing
I don't know what's worse the fact that Google sold out, or the fact they they are now trying to justify it on thier blog. I mean screw us and then tell us that it's really a massage. NO! GOOGLE SOLD OUT!
I don't care what you are trying to explain Google but a truely Neutral Internet needs NO EXPLANATION. This is bad for consumers and you know it. PLEASE DO NOT fall in line with likes of AT&T, VZW, Comcast etc!!!
I've loved just about everything you've done, but if you keep pushing this, I for 1 am going to seriously reconsider my entire stance on you.
I'm hoping for a little help understanding something that may make the Google/Verizon wireless exception a moot point.
As I understand the big deal about the G/V pact is their exception of wireless from the net neutrality rules.. another exception of new tech being at least initially excluded.
I saw a video of Vint Cerf recently where he spoke about what I recall as Ultra-Wide-Band radio, where the frequencies would be shared and that would address the available bandwidth issue of wireless internet connections.
If this is so; wireless internet connectivity will not be the bandwidth bottleneck, then it makes great business sense for the big telecoms to carve that off the regulated neutral internet.
So that would seem to hand over to the telecoms wireless internet connectivity, and it would indeed, especially for major entertainment networks.
What's to prevent anyone from building UWB wireless routers like they now have at every Starbucks or where ever someone would like to share their wired -and regulated neutral- internet connection?
Along with other developments like IPv6, which I believe will allow protected channels to make it easier to share a connection without opening up one's entire network.
So, am I way off base or is any of this even reasonable?
""It’s up to Congress, the FCC, other policymakers – and the American public – to take it from here.""
-- So hey Google, I took you up on your word.. I helped you out on your proposal and made some changes. Can you get Eric and Verizon's CEO to review this draft and get back to me?!
I have in the past applauded google on its stand with regard to net neutrality. However this is a move against the very foundation of net neutrality.
As a network architect I understand the need to manage network traffic for congestion, however I also know that the prioritization of data is a completely subjective enterprise. Verizon is asking to be placed in a position to make revenue associated with the "Type" of data traffic and that is wrong!! Google has taken a leap away from the neutrality issue in opening the door for the "Pay for my data first" scam which is against all of the beliefs associated with neutrality. Making an argument that wireless networks are different from dial-up networks is absurd, as capacity on both networks is a problem, the number of connections that can be made etc... recall the AOL debacle where they ran out of modem capacity and struggled to increase this capacity in the wake of a lawsuit.
I do wish Google would remain the proud flag holder of the net neutrality fight, is seems they have been corrupted by the same environment that causes Oracle to abandon the open source community after Sun became its standard bearer.
This policy deal remains at the top of the minds of all of us who believe in a neutral internet, in the end Google will have become big business, and the Verizon/Google team will play the cards that make them the most money, it is just a shame that they went down the inevitable profit/loss path which in the end abandons the idea that everyone no matter how small should have equal access.
Mike, No offense but your post is so half ass backward..
You open with "When Microsoft started being evil their reputation was gone in 3 years.. FOR EVER."
And close with "I have switched my search over to Bing"
UM HELLO BING=MICROSOFT! Your the biggest bandwagon jumper I've ever seen.... I'm just going to trust google, there is nothing wrong with someone trying to take action.. Sure you might not agree with everything but things could be 100X worse if left in the hands of just verizon, or just the FCC.
As with everything there need's to be a compromise, just because google drafted something up don't mean they agree with 100% of it.. but know they cant have it their way or the highway...
That's why the medicare bill took so long because everyone wanted something for themselves and no one even cared about coming up with a compromise.
In short, keep it up Google don't let bleeding hearts stop innovation. You've came thru before with many great products, as well as bringing jobs to alot of people in their times of need(and no , i'm not one of them) you can do it again. Good luck, stay true... Fuck the hippies.
I don't see why the FCC is so hell bent on being the ones to come thru and make a draft... Really if they were that concerned they would have done so back in 2002 instead of just being like "yeah we want out we dont want to have to work".. They had their chance to be hero, applaude google for stepping up to the plate. Now FCC decides they want to spend millions campaigning the issue, and using google as a propaganda tool instead of an ally.
This whole plan is garbage. They should just stay Neutral. Both wireless and wired. If it's not neutral then it's just a way for money and rip people off.
This is easily the worst thing Google could have done for its image - corporate, or otherwise.
To suggest that this is going protect consumers is lunacy. This is all about increasing corporate profits and eliminating the little guy.
I can't say that I'm surprised that Google (a huge corporation), would do what it can to increase its profits. But to do it in a way that is going to cost consumers so heavily is disgusting. To lie about it is revolting.
Just the fact that a person has to use their Google Gmail info to post a comment here speaks volumes as to what Google is up to.
Keep it up Google. You will soon change from hero to villian in the minds of those who still support you.
>MYTH: Google has “sold out” on network neutrality.
>FACT: Google has been the leading corporate voice >on the issue of network neutrality over the past five >years. No other company is working as tirelessly for >an open Internet.
And then you stopped. It doesn't matter what you did in the past if you abandon your work and move to the side of net control by big business and carriers.....
MYTH: This proposal represents a step backwards for the open Internet.
FACT: If adopted, this proposal would for the first time give the FCC the ability to preserve the open Internet through enforceable rules on broadband providers. At the same time, the FCC would be prohibited from imposing regulations on the Internet itself.
By exempting wireless access from the "Open" internet? Im not buying that.
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.
advocated for certain openness and in the spirit of compromise.... Hmmm what do you mean? Google was an advocate for openness when it suited its needs and now is not because its not practical in the wireless world?? This destroys net neutrality in the wireless world. I guess WIFI is next on your list of things to corrupt? I am sad.. I will comment on the rest of this stuff later.....
Neutral-not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy
So For the Net to be truly Neutral the ISP's would not aligned with or supporting any side more than the other. So basically the title should be changed to "If you have lots of money then you gets all the internets you wantz."
""It’s up to Congress, the FCC, other policymakers – and the American public – to take it from here.""
-- So hey Google, I took you up on your word.. I helped you out on your proposal and made some changes. Can you get Eric and Verizon's CEO to review this draft and get back to me?!
"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."
I guess we get to wait and hope that as these roll out at the carrier's good time and pace we can always have hope that once they have their hands on closed networks that they will open them again.
In a pig's eye.
"MYTH: This proposal will allow broadband providers to “cannibalize” the public Internet.
FACT: Another aspect of the joint proposal would allow broadband providers to offer certain specialized services to customers, services which are not part of the Internet. So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability – so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet. Some broadband providers already offer these types of services today. The chief challenge is to let consumers benefit from these non-Internet services, without allowing them to impede on the Internet itself."
Here's this funny public Internet thingy again. I guess if you say it often enough we'll believe there's more than one Internet, right?
Now, onto more important things. The Internet (the only one) offers all these things already so what you propose does, in fact, cannibalize the Internet. It can do nothing else.
With respect to who benefits in the line "The chief challenge is to let consumers benefit from these non-Internet services, without allowing them to impede on the Internet itself." you obviously mean the carriers as the public/consumers'/suckers get aren't likely to given cell pricing in North America these days.
Anyway, as I said above all these things exist on the Internet now, so what's to impede already?
So let's be honest shall we what you're proposing is a collection of private, (most likely) incompatible TCP/IP based networks featuring such wonderful things as carrier and vendor lock in to sell things that exist now.
The proposal doesn't just allow cannibalization it practically demands it.
"MYTH: Google is working with Verizon on this because of Android.
FACT: This is a policy proposal – not a business deal. Of course, Google has a close business relationship with Verizon, but ultimately this proposal has nothing to do with Android."
Prove it.
"MYTH: Two corporations are legislating the future of the Internet."
I sincerely hope not.
REALITY: Google and Verizon come up with this dog's breakfast for their exclusive good reducing the public, once again to mere consumers, while grabbing for rights they don't have now to enrich only themselves.
Then offer this sad attempt at spin.
Google, in the process, has abandoned the openness that has allowed them to grow and flourish as this spin attempt shows.
In doing so it violates it's "do no evil" slogan while learning how to do so complete with spin from another corporation who are past masters, in many people's eyes, of "doing evil".
You just dropped further on the trust-o-meter guys.
Part 1 and I apologize for this being posted in the wrong order.
"MYTH: Google has “sold out” on network neutrality."
As a conclusion it's reasonable given what follows.
"With that in mind, we decided to partner with a major broadband provider on the best policy solution we could devise together."
One leaving the wireline business as fast as they can but sure. And one on the record as saying it wants no regulation on wireless or wireline period full stop.
"FACT: If adopted, this proposal would for the first time give the FCC the ability to preserve the open Internet through enforceable rules on broadband providers. At the same time, the FCC would be prohibited from imposing regulations on the Internet itself."
There's a closed Internet out there????
Oh, you mean wireline only or public Internet or some other non sequitor.
FACT! -- There is the Internet and only the Internet. At least until we get down to the next true myth.
"MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless."
Yes it does now and forever.
"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."
On the donor levels no doubt and not to the good of the public or economy as a whole.
Put another way just who, other than yourselves maybe are you kidding here.
"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."
Other than a particularly well put example of B.S. it sounds like you've taken Verizon's stand as absolute truth rather than the, ahhh, exaggeration that it is.
One can manage a network without being discriminatory over protocols being used on it which is a great deal of what this is about.
"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."
Here's this open Internet thingy again. Repeat after me until you get it there is the Internet and there is the Internet. Or rather was.
"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."
Here it is! This must be the unopen, restricted, and private Internet!
Full transparency? Are you dreaming? From telcos and cablecos? Since when? Anywhere on the planet?
"Importantly, Congress would always have the ability to step in and impose new safeguards on wireless broadband providers to protect consumers’ interests."
Like the public/consumers'/suckers can afford the millions the telcos, cablecos and Google can afford in donations to buy votes??
You know there's a reason politicians are about as well liked as stepping on a slug in bare feet and less trusted as inmates in prisons for fraud.
No biggie. It had to happen sooner or later. As companies grow, large growth opportunities are harder to come by. Google too had to eventually fall in line with other large corporations seeking continued growth. The spin only appears more disingenuous because of the vaulted position they are coming from. Go make tons of dough Googlers! We'll buy the stock but keep our eyes peeled for the next Google.
If Google continues to pursue this avenue of thinking it will be an immense political mistake. Wireless internet is, of course, the only future of the internet. So to not include wireless in net neutrality is to have no net neutrality at all. I previously loved so much of what Google has done. This, however, has the ability to limit it all... to limit the internet. I ask you sir to reconsider.
I love how the tone of this blog is spun so that it seems like Google and Verizon got together to do the public a FAVOR.
We all know that Google is taking control of the internet because it is now a web powerhouse and misusing its powers to kill the internet as we know it. Splitting the internet into what can only be "elite service" and garbage, provider-fed and COMPLETELY NOT NEUTRAL, SLANTED internet.
Google sold out. Power lies in the hands of the public, don't ever forget that.
This semantic game on the part of Google is equivalent to the statements they made before they entered the apps business, smartphone business and every other competitive move they have made. Why are we surprised?? We just need to continue to monitor Google's actions and ignore the rhetoric.
The definition of “reasonable network management” needs to be clarified and refined.
The cutout for “additional online services” puts innovations of the future Internet at risk.
There is no definition of what is "lawful content" is.
"For EFF, the first test for a network neutrality proposal is this: would it have clearly prevented Comcast from interfering with BitTorrent? In the Google/Verizon proposal, because of ambiguous exceptions like the one that allows an ISP “otherwise to manage the daily operation of its network“, we can't be sure that that's true."
The definition of “reasonable network management” needs to be clarified and refined.
The cutout for “additional online services” puts innovations of the future Internet at risk.
There is no definition of what is "lawful content" is.
"For EFF, the first test for a network neutrality proposal is this: would it have clearly prevented Comcast from interfering with BitTorrent? In the Google/Verizon proposal, because of ambiguous exceptions like the one that allows an ISP “otherwise to manage the daily operation of its network“, we can't be sure that that's true."
As a librarian, I believe that Google needs to adopt something more or less like our American Librarian Association's professional code of ethics (http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/proethics/codeofethics/codeethics.cfm). It defines how we strive to provide unbiased, equal support and access to all resources; how we do not put private interests above public ones; how we protect privacy; how we respect intellectual property rights; how we uphold intellectual freedom and resist censorship; and much, much more. This is our "Do no evil," and our public service has followed it for decades before we formally adopted it in 1997. Doesn't it sound like Google's previous stance on net neutrality? But, then, most of we librarians work for non-profits whose goal is service to the public. It sounds like the corporate giant Google has become has forgotten its original ideals in the pursuit of profit. That makes me sad, as it seems that it is becoming one more company that we can not trust.
Google selling out has been coming and at long last here it is in all its glory. Congratulations Google. Officially now you totally suck. Switching to Bing/Yahoo as well.
Whoever is voting this Verizon/Google deal with their money and time go roll over and die in fire.
Wow this blog post is complete spin. Google? Are you serious? I thought we were buddies.
Playing to our fear of "government regulation" -- how seasonal of you. Please post a meaningful explanation of what you're doing instead of this meaningless myth/fact spin.
Google started going off the track for me when they decided to make their own browsers. Felt like a very disloyal move to Firefox and for those who remember history. When Microsoft crushed Netscape, it was one of their more Evil moves.
So I started to get the feeling that all was not right in Google-land. Then you had the China incident, another compromise, giving private records to the government, the HORRIBLE News Page redesign that is being set up to make them more money, while making it unreadable and this is just to name a few. Now this betrayal to everything you stood for and to us.
I for one and doing everything in my power to de-google my life and lord knows it won't be easy but I know it will only get harder later, when they show more of their true colors down the road.
What people want is an open internet. I do not want two "internets", one for premium services and one for regular services. We already pay the ISPs for connecting us, we pay Google and others by accepting advertising and some of us pay a monthly subscription charge for services ie NetFlix, Windows Live for Xbox 360, World of Warcraft players paying a subscription fee to Blizzard, Carbonite for backing up our local data in the "cloud", etc, on and on. This is the way the internet is supposed to work. We don't want the ISP cramming stuff down our throats or being the gatekeeper of who can succeed in business being transacted over the internet. Why can't "the people" win this one? Don't give me that nonsense about stagnation in Washington either. We already don't expect them to do anything right, like securing our borders, recently saw a video of drug runners with AK-47's leading a line of smugglers carrying packs of drugs on their backs into our country! This happens, and our government doesn't secure our borders? ISPs and big corporations will be the drug runners screwing the American people daily. Is that what Sergey Brin and Larry Page envisioned for Google? Did they envision protesters where Googlers spend their days? Do the right thing, inept Washington or not, don't play Washington's game. Google needs to flex its muscles not cave in.
Josh Highley ... "I'd rather have increased competition in wired broadband instead of gov't regulation (which can be a slippery slope)."
The slippery slope is to leave this without strong and effective legislation. The suggestions for wired networks are good in this proposal but there is NO reason to treat wireless networks any differently with regard to non voice call traffic.
The ONLY proviso should be that Telco companies are allowed to limit non voice call traffic at times when they need to do that in order to maintain call quality. When they do that they should be required to limit ALL non voice data equally in a non discriminatory manner.
The current networks were built on the basis of neutrality. Google made their business in that neutral world. Google would be nowhere today if the existing search providers had been able to buy preferential channels that negated any performance improvements that Google's innovative engine provided.
Telcos are already trying to eat away at that neutrality precisely BECAUSE there is no strong legislation to force them to do otherwise.
Strong legislation requiring non discrimination of data across ALL networks is essential now.
Google ... "So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability – so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet"
1) All of those services given as "examples" are part of the internet as it exists now. - How are they different in scope to what the current internet provides?
2) The services will all be passing through the same limited pipelines. Providing extra bandwidth to "special channels" is not possible without reducing the bandwidth available to the rest. - How are they separate and apart from the public internet?
Basically this policy proposal provides the ability for telcos to sell special fast track channels to established big businesses who can afford to pay for it whilst smaller companies and startups are limited to the "best effort internet." It will soon become essential for business success to be part of the "fast track".
This is exactly what the proponents of an open neutral net are fighting against.
I don't know? ... Are Google just playing dumb? ... or are they just plain dumb?
Another FAIL at pulling the wool over our eyes Google.
As far as I'm concerned, all of those "Myths" are true.
However, I can't believe that Google would really be stupid enough to kill the open Internet. The thing that makes the Internet so cool is that anybody can post anything and anybody else can see it.
Remember way back in the day when Google was a search engine? Search engines are nothing without content. Google would not be what it is today without everybody piling on to look for reviews of Buffy or pictures of . . . cats. Yeah, cats. That's it.
If Google and Verizon get their way, the Internet will be nothing but another cable TV channel. And we don't need another one of those.
Go ahead, Google, kill the goose that laid your golden eggs. And in the meantime, how many of us will stop using Google products? I've never actually looked at Bing but I'm ready to start.
Google, leave this issue alone. You should fight for all data being treated equally on the net however it is accessed even if it means you end up on the losing side.
You're pulling up the ladder behind you. Please stop, you're destroying your public goodwill and will end up detested.
Fact: A free internet is one of mankind's greatest achievements and a huge force for future innovation and communication and general progress.
Fact: Wired broadband is giving way to wireless and mobile
Fact: Google definitely sold out. This agreement may have some perks for the free internet but it is enabling the future of the internet to be controlled and oppressed by corporate powers.
Good job. I guess I'll have to find another provider for my search engine, email, browser, dreams - etc.
This is to all those people who are against this proposal. I am against it too, but what do you expect from a company that is nurtured by capitalism? You cant expect any company to make huge profits while at the same time being moral, and it is naive to believe otherwise. Google "may" have championed net neutrality in the past but ONLY because they benefited from it, now Google benefits from advocating against net neutrality, it all chalks up to money.
Classical damage control release. The fact is that net neutrality is a reality now, and this agreement would take away from that. What part of that does Google not understand? Or are you just hopping that we don't understand that?
We should never be lulled into believing a private company would look out for the public interest. Google is a private company and they will only defend their interest. Let's make sure we all understand that.
It's astonishing for Google to claim this is a victory for net neutrality even though it only applies to wired broadband and not to wireless broadband. We all know the future lies in wireless broadband, so this is a thinly veiled attempt to destroy the net neutrality in the near future. In 10 years very few people will use the wired broadband-Thanks for nothing Google!
The fact that this "pack" is so lengthy proves it's not neutral at all.
Google, I'll write your "framework" for you:
"Internet service providers, regardless of the medium or technology used, cannot prioritize, block or favor any specific packets of data. All packets must have the same priority."
There -- short, simple and truly neutral. I'm sorry, but if your wireless technology is not robust enough to handle the demand, then maybe you need a different technology.
This is like a newspaper company saying that paper is in short demand, so we're only printing the ads (content that pays us).
This stunt has really changed my views of Google. They have fallen into the same mold that so many other large companies do: start out as the underdog, become successful, grow to an enormous size, then turn and crap on everyone and everything that got them there in order to protect their own interests.
Yes, they are sellouts and it is worse for them because they for so long have said they would protect the medium that made them successful. It makes them that much more hypocritical.
NYTIMES EDITORIAL The Google/Verizon Payment Plan http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/opinion/14sat1.html?hpw
Mercury New Editorial Opinion: Google-Verizon should prompt FCC to demand Net Neutrality
By Susan Crawford and Lawrence Lessig Special to the Mercury News
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_15745767
Read them both. This is a call for boycotts and brand damage. Google is not Evil, They are Bad = "Google: Open Source Trojan Horse." Time for web-mobs and social-media intervention.
Mountain View California // Friday 13th 2010 (Watch Broadcast in HD) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqrOCsKhxSk
* * * * Google's California Headquarters was the target of a protest against Google's controversial proposal with made Verizon to alter how data and is treated over the internet. The protest was attended by national and international news media and press. The protest was organized by an association of groups supporting "Network Neutrality". The protestors were well armed with boxes filled with OVER 300,000 PETITIONS supporting "a free and open internet". And warned Goolgle and others with similar thoughts, that this was only a sample of the overwhelming support of an open and free internet and Net-Neutrality." The Groups spokesman: James Rucker (co-founder of ColorofChange.org) staged the protest at Google's HQ, in targeted attempt to make Google "re-think" their bold and controversial proposal made with Verizon and presented to the FCC.
To everyone who has said "Google is spineless," "Google sold out," "This is the end of net neutrality!" Pull your heads out of your butts and look at the big picture. Sure, ISP's aren't giving us internet like cable, they aren't giving more speed when connecting to Facebook rather than Myspace. They aren't doing it, because they can't get along and all do it. If there is no other option we are stuck with it, and ISP's HAVE the right to do this right now. They already throttle people! This is the first step in securing our internet as it is. Sure, there is going to be some more benefits to big ISP's like Verizon, but the thing is if there wasn't any compromise in the plan, Verizon would never even start to think of considering it, and leading the way for other companies to follow suit. So much of a possibility of having any legal protections, no matter how small couldn't happen without some drawbacks. It's just a matter of wheedling our way in, it's not going to happen over night, and it's not gonna be complete neutrality right away. But it's a start.
In short, A truly neutral internet doesn't exist yet, and it can't exist in one policy, and it won't. Companies won't back it, steps in the right direction need to be taken. Also this is a PROPOSAL! This isn't law, it's not even been considered yet by court. Google is the only one trying.
It is fine if you want to make money and screw over people Google, but don't write an overcomplicated 10 page letter saying that it is for the 'protection' of consumers. The U.S Government can barely handle physical regulation of trade, so Government regulation of non-physical properties is completely asinine.
Simply put, dont lie to us google. you sold out your customer base to make sure the government will take care of you. Goodbye google, you have lost a long-time customer.
Shame on you Google! You should be ashamed of yourself. When a company does something that makes me consider using a Microsoft product (Bing!) you know they screwed up big time.
This is just a game of whose eyes are on what ball.
They are trying to show how much they are 'protecting' wireline services, but if you look at the trend, they are helping to usher in thin clients (the wireless service) which will be charged for less discrimination in their Internet usage.
Google is a company which wants everyone to go thin in order to start a more mainframe-type existence on the Internet, thereby making it easier to charge and meter your services. The PC has been too powerful a platform, and software (and marketing companies like Google) makers lost control back in 1995 when it came to copying. Now that we have a 'trustworthy' Internet, the move to thin clients is inevitable.
Google is playing the "We are protecting you children by ensuring that wireline services go untouched" but aren't telling you that they don't want anything to do with wireline services, and more importantly don't want you to have anything to do with wireline services in the future either; they'll make much more money for their shareholders should they succeed.
Change your search engine to Bing, or some other company, and get away from these guys as quickly as possible before the noose is too tight.
This will lead to horrible things if you don't take a stand here Google. In 20 years when only the biggest ISPs are paying each other for high-speed access and the small ones are all shutdown or bought out because they can't make a profit from paying these access fees will we see a true corporate controlled network. And then what?
Will you please get a copy editor before you publish this stuff. The content is fork-tongued, as many here have pointed out, but the style needs a hell of a lot of work too.
Google: Evil! And not too smart, either, contrary to the avalanche of PR they've inflicted on us.
Thanks a a lot Google. Not. You made your fortune on the back of a neutral net and now you are denying that to those who would follow. The principle of net neutrality is sacrosanct. You are either for it or against it. e.g. You can't say 'All men are created equal' and still continue to have slaves. You must live up to these fine words and be judged by your deeds. Just because others are trying to screw up net neutrality, just because the regulator is currently hopeless doesn't mean you should give up and join the bad guys. Stick to your principles and just see what happens. We dare you.
First, the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from.
Translation: Net Neutrality isn't necessary when you can simply switch carriers (Nevermind that cancellation fees are extremely expensive and prevent almost everyone from switching before their contract is up).
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.
Translation: It's expensive to upgrade these wireless networks to meet consumer demand so we'd rather just throttle your bandwidth and access to content.
Third, network and device openness is now beginning to take off as a significant business model in this space.
Translation: Our "open" Android devices that are carrier-specific stand to make boat-loads of money for us if we can lock people into using our services.
I am very curious to see Google's response to this avalanche of negative comments from users and expert bloggers. The users have stated their opinion very clearly on this matter. Now Google has to make a choice: stick with the corporate plan and face the consequences of not being admired (and loved) by their customers (the world's people); or listen to the very explicit people's will and tell their corporate friends "I'm sorry, but this is not what the Net Neutrality that our customers want". There is no possibility for compromise here. I just hope Google doesn't come with the "It's for your own good!" answer.
Looks like it's time to go back to Mozilla. I've been using a pay as you go this month and was going to wait for a new contract as soon as the android 3.0 phones roll out, but if my internet is being hacked up by a company that pulled an about face on it's customers, I don't see any reason I should stay or believe their old slogan.
Content providers are already free to buy as much uplink bandwidth as they want. But I as a user am paying for my uplink and downlink. This proposal would allow content providers to control that as well. Verizon wants to restrict what services I can connect to.
Verizon has no "right" to the airwaves; the public has granted it an exclusive license to use certain public airwaves. The public therefore has the right to regulate Verizon in any manner that it wishes.
Nice, though wordy way of saying, "we had to break a few eggs to make a proposed future omelet." The landslide of public anger with Google over this one isn't going to go away until they TRY to fix it. No sign of that yet. I'm very disappointed.
This is exactly what Tim Berners-lee warned everyone about years ago and now it is happening as clear as day and in plain sight.
When the Media corporations eventually swallow Google up; Google will always be remembered as the company that set the president for companies to restrict content on the internet along with Verizon. Then for search.
It is important that Google understands exactly what it has done here and that Google did not have to lie about it's position on net neutrality in the first place.
There is currently no protection for anyone, Google just wants anything in place, anything at all; to protect the internet.
Unfortunately, Google lost as soon as they entered the net neutrality fight. If they do nothing, people will be angry, if they try anything and it is not absolutely perfect - people will be angry.
People also discount economic viability, it would ultimately be less profitable for a company to have non-neutral internet. AOL ISP is a perfect example of how non-neutral internet is not economically viable.
So when the one and only company trying to get any kind of net neutrality legislation passed does anything short of perfect everyone hates them. Google unfortunately engaged in a non-winnable fight with net neutrality.
However, non-neutral internet is not truly economically viable, this was proved by AOL ISP, who ultimately only survived because of diversification.
When you have become the Walmart of the Internet in terms of size and buying power as Google has, then your pride begins to swell and think that you can bully people into doing what you want. You tell manufacturers how to build things, design things, and sell things to your advantage.
It is time the people of the world unite and stand up to bullying big business and tell them that we, the people, are the bosses. We buy or don't buy their products, which in turn, determines who survives and dies in the world of free enterprise.
Google has made it big on the backs of small people all over the world. It is time to bring down this GIANT and show them who is boss. Walmart and other too-big-to-fail companies need to be reminded that, like politicians, their fates are in OUR hands.
Google was a small enterprise that had good intentions in its beginning, but even the road to destruction is paved with good intentions. Down with Google. Don't be so quick to adopt Bing, the red-headed step-child related to Google and owned by small computer GIANT Microsoft.
There are plenty of other web search engines besides these over-inflated behemoths.
Power to the people.
Keep Congress out of cyberspace. It is the last free frontier in the world.
How do you people think that Google makes money from you using them as a search engine or simply doing searches using Google? They make money from targeted ads in which they use your info that you provide to them in everything you do be it using a Nexus One or Chrome as your browser or sending email via Gmail..
Switching search providers isn't going to hurt anything, or Google.
I'm reminded of Demolition Man when Sandra Bullock says "But all restaurants are Taco Bell, John Spartan". That, in a nutshell is what the internet will become if companies like Google and Verizon are allowed to submit legislation to government and it passes.
Google has sold out and so has verizon. Net neutrality means they can control what sites you visit, and what information you can research, and what types of responses you get to your research. This is like the Hitler propaganda machine, if you think, say, or research anything that could be conceived as anti liberal, anti progressive, anti democrat, anti government control they can keep you from saying it or seeing or researching it. We must have freedom of information and our rights must be protected.
"MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless."
Should read :
"FACT: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless."
As the text that follows is unpersuasive and palliative at best.
Here's some another clear form of schizophrenic denial of the truth:
"broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability – so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet" -- WHY THE HELL... those *ARE ALREADY* part of the public internet.
Thus it should read FACT instead of MYTH: This proposal will allow broadband providers to “cannibalize” the public Internet.
The reasoning Google adopts is backwards and possibly intended to deceive.
For the longest time I have been a staunch advocate for Google...that is all in flux now. Google is a sell-out...“Our doubts are traitors and make us lose the good we oft might win, by fearing to attempt”
Why not work into your compromise that phones and devices be interoperable on all wireless systems. That creates true competition. Consumers would than pay for what they consume.
What you have now is a shell game with phone manufacturers creating a product that falls apart in a year, and phone companies underwriting the cost of this junk in order to contract users into a locked down position in exchange for the (NOT)free phones.
It's not enough that the machine tasked with protecting our rights is owned by The Corporate Beast. We now we have to swallow the illusion that any of the players actually gives a sh&t about the end user. They don't. Vote with your feet. Dial down your phone plan, switch to yahoo or bing and flip them the digital bird that matters.
A balance is always achieved by permitting a chaotic system to be chaotic. Google should understand this very elemental point. Any controls over the Internet will always impose an artificial effect on the Internet and curtail demand, choice and freedom. If people want to watch online video more than talk and Google thinks that VOIP packets should have priority, then they are imposing their own view and not the view of the World.
With wireless looking to someday be how most people will get their Internet don't you think segregating wireless from wired sets a dangerous precedent?
Google, Thank you for being the first to finally lay a proposal for net neutrality.
I have to agree with the majority of the user comments, which obviously feel that we have room to adjust this policy. However, I have trusted you with my business and personal information for many years now, and I see no reason to 'switch to bing'. I think that some users fail to link bing to the stagnant, greed filled company which is microsoft. I believe that you have the innovative spirit that all companies should possess. A spirit that Microsoft surely lacks. We view you as a philanthropist company, because you have built a reputation of being for the people, not for a giant profit. Although, your business is overwhelmingly profitable, due to the faith we have in your decisions and products.
This county has been hit with a crushing blow by the banking industry, and we cannot afford to have our only champion stray into the filth of political pressure, and person gain.
Google, please defend net neutrality as a truly open internet. Do this and I'll stand by your side as long as there is a fight to be had.
Come on Google, You threw your weight around against CHINA and WON, your saying you need to compromise with Verizon? Your actions in CHINA made me a life long user of Google and a possible buyer of the Nexus One. Now I have to reevaluate our relationship, email, web browsing, everything. I loved you Google, love us again!
this will explain why google and verizon are "partnering to compromise". they don't have a way to "own" the wire. but verizon did spend almost $5 billion on airwaves 4 years ago. and google needs those for droid 10.7.
there has to be another amendment to the constitution of this country to declare the internet - no matter over wire or waves (or any future transport method) - to be a basic right. like access to water, health care, education. nobody, even god, should not be "enforcing" any "rules" as far as the internet is concerned. much less greedy humans with a "business model". this is not a political or business discussion. at this stage of human development is more of a human right necessity.
so, google, until you push a new amendment to the constitution to make the internet a basic human right your thingy about 'don't be evel' would have the same relevance as the declaration of victory bush did on the board of that carrier.
Not happy... Consumer trend is Laptops, Smart Phones, iPad, tablets etc and Verizon 4G on the horizon, a lot more people are gonna be switching from wired to wireless. Wireless is a huge and net neutrality is every bit as important as wired.
While I don't know the full intentions of corporates, I do know that for a while I have been contemplating the best methods to allow a Safer but more controlled internet as well as allowing the freedom's that we all appreciate.
My eventual reasoning was and is pretty clear, there should be a Parallel implementation of a secondary network.
The Current one stays as is, the new secondary network uses a secure tunnel from User to gateway to ascertain that no proxy was used, websites appearing on this secondary network would have to go through a process of legitimacy check (Perhaps limiting it to companies that have been in operation for at least 5 years to lessen the number of fake short-term company signups) and having security checks done on behalf of the domains registrar. All connections to the net can be fully IPv6 complicit and utilise the new SDNS protocols. This secondary network doesn't have to be Worldwide but could be localised to country. After all as long as you have the continued freedom of the original internet, a secondary one isn't going to undermine the capacity for an individual to have Freedom. (Two networks is better than one closed censored system.)
The second network could have adaptive user profiles that identify a persons age (Based upon relevant data) when logging in to lessen the potential problems that age can cause. (Adults blocked from creating accounts on kids sites, or kids on adults etc)
Keeping the current internet as is means that there are less compatibility issues or teething issues, or issues caused by people not wanting to change from what they are use to.
Admittedly it would mean two different login's, possibly some sort of switch method on a router between a Secure super policed network to the insecure original internet (with of course an operators disclaimer suggesting there is no policing there etc)
As for the concerns of bandwidth, move all the premium services (via parallel implementation) to the new network, people then won't use those services because they won't have access to them.
But hey, one persons reasoning does not make a decent network build (much like two corporates reasoning might miss out on other peoples logical assessments)
The FUTURE of the internet is nearly ALL wireless within 10 years. Google isn't stupid, it knows this. Therefore, saying "Oh we support Net Neutrality for wired connections but wireless is simply too difficult and we have to allow Mega Corps the control they seek" is a PROPAGANDA tactic - Google is staging itself into a new power structure that oversees, restricts, controls & profits from the internet as it will be in the near future. Not only that, but as Google currently provides the most-used directory & search service, they will stand to ultimately control much of the internet on the whole. How are those "country-less" sea-faring servers coming along??
If Google decides to go forth with this proposal, it's my sincere hope that the public can band together not only to defeat the proposal/legislation but also to boycott Google and strip it of its current standing in the world. No such company, whether shortsighted for profit or convenience, should be given the trust of the public.
If you agree to any level of censorship you have just sold out everyone. The fact that you come up with half assed excuses is just proof you want to make money instead of doing whats right. I guess we will all be bowing down to our phone providers and begging for their mercy. Thanks for screwing us.
What we have now is NO regulation, so a broadband carrier could simply stop-or slow- specified content, e.g., Skype, if they wanted to. What this proposal offers is a way to prioritize voice and streaming video, and de-prioritize email, for instance, as long as the policy was neutral as to where content came from or was going.
From Larry Downes--"objections to the Google-Verizon framework take issue with features of the proposal that are identical to the FCC's pending rules. For example, both the Google-Verizon proposal and the FCC rules allow network operators to implement "reasonable network management" techniques, even if those would otherwise violate Net neutrality. Both approaches also recognize that some classes of Internet activity--including voice and video--already require and receive priority in order to maintain their integrity. Giving priority to entire classes of content does not violate the Net neutrality rules, as proposed by Google-Verizon or the FCC. "http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20013212-38.html?tag=mncol;mlt_related That seems reasonable to me, not a sell out. The alternative is the wild west of no regulation at all.
Google didn't want to filter searches in China and now wants to discriminate traffic, two-class internet, that was what they deserved when they began so they wouldn't be what they are now.
For me it sounds as: "We were two guys in a house who started up a multi-billion company, we don't want anyone else to do it". How? Make the traffic to new internet applications that could compete against Google slower so users will be annoyed. I'm very disappointed but not surprised at all.
After all, Google is a company, and all this open mentality with China is a personal problem of its founder who lived in communist Soviet Union, but when they can make money, they don't care to discriminate and make the fast services internet for the companies ready to pay, and the slow services for those who can't pay. VERY SAD FOR ME.
Sorry, google seems disingenuous at best here. I'm about as average a person as there is, but this latest power play on the heels of the "great wall of compromise" [re: the china sell-out deal] from google just makes them look more power and greed-hungry than ever. No wonder my whore of an ex-lover works there. bunch of soulless greed mongers
Who went off and left you two CORPORATIONS God? Don't pander and patronize the citizens of America with your self-serving doubletalk.
What you propose is CORPORATE FASCISM WITH GOOGLE, VERIZON, AND YOUR ILK IN CHARGE.
The Internet belongs to the PEOPLE, not to you.
I will be blocking all your cookies, and ads, henceforth, and advising all my clients to do the same.
Further, I will show my clients how to "adjust" your cookies, if they are required to view content, to ensure your ability to eavesdrop is limited or eliminated.
Should you see reason and stop your attempt to takeover the Net, I, and others, will relent.
Who went off and left you two CORPORATIONS God? Don't pander and patronize the citizens of America with your self-serving doubletalk.
What you propose is CORPORATE FASCISM WITH GOOGLE, VERIZON, AND YOUR ILK IN CHARGE.
The Internet belongs to the PEOPLE, not to you.
I will be blocking all your cookies, and ads, henceforth, and advising all my clients to do the same.
Further, I will show my clients how to "adjust" your cookies, if they are required to view content, to ensure your ability to eavesdrop is limited or eliminated.
Should you see reason and stop your attempt to takeover the Net, I, and others, will relent.
"Guys we wanted to get anti baby killing legislature passed, and we had to kill a few babies to get that done... but the new policy ensures its only legal to kill black babies"
^that is essentially the BS google is trying to sell you.
You cant pick and choose where you stand on issues as black and white as net neutrality or baby murder. Its either you are for it or against it. You cant be for *some* net neutrality, or *some* baby murder. Because if you are for any level of baby murder or any level of closed internet... YOU ARE EVIL.
After years of vehemently promoting google, Bing just got a new customer.
Any move by Google that limits or controls my access to information on a mobile or other platform is an attack on my freedom. I will boycott all google products and withdraw all accounts
Google is responsible to uphold the value for its customers, and remember the values of the freedom, and not exploit the corrupt nature for fiscal gains that government allows and has become has become.
DONT BE EVIL DONT BE EVIL DONT BE EVIL DONT BE EVIL DONT BE EVIL DONT BE EVIL DONT BE EVIL DONT BE EVIL DONT BE EVIL DONT BE EVIL DONT BE EVIL DONT BE EVIL DONT BE EVIL DONT BE EVIL
Is it the 'political realities' that you're concerned about or the nice sweetheart deals with Verizon and other telecoms that you're getting out of this legislation the reason for your switch?
Google, Verizon, Comcast, et al should not be involved with the writing of this legislation. We've already seen what happens when companies write the legislation that is to regulate them with the catastrophes of BP and Enron.
Exactly right. This is a pathetic attempt by Google to justify what everyone knows is a gross violation of net neutrality.
@ anyone reading at Google Inc: If you proceed with this Verizon deal, I will cancel my gmail account, stop using blogger, sell my google shares and switch my default search to Bing.
I will make it my mission to use the internet, before Google manages to destroy it, to encourage all of my family and friends to follow suit.
Evil, no. Sold out, yes. Google is compromising their morals, sure, but so do all other companies. The financial interests will always win out against "fighting the good fight" for an important cause.
Gone are they days when I thought Google was a moral pinnacle. Sadly, this proves they are just another player in the oligarchy.
As a former Google fan, Android user, and consumer of Google services, I am so very... VERY disappointed.
Realizing network neutrality is impossible to get through the political system? Good. Give up, it's a bad idea to regulate this anyway. The only kind of regulation I'd be for is forcing transparency when network providers do "shape" traffic, so we can see what we're getting for our non-neutral network rates.
If I use more water or electricity, I expect to pay more. If I need a particular kind of service I expect to pay the going rate for it. Why should internet access be any different? Let the market sort it out.
Um, Everything is working fine; so why make any change at all?
The whole point of net neutrality is about NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES. Attempting to redefine the original term is worst kind of deception possible and goes against your own corporate motto of "don't be evil."
If I assume that you are for net neutrality and that this is indeed you trying to ensure that the FCC for the first time has the power to properly enforce it's rules on the internet, I have to look at this:
"Fourth, because of the confusion about the FCC’s authority following the Comcast court decision, our proposal spells out the FCC’s role and authority in the broadband space. In addition to creating enforceable consumer protection and nondiscrimination standards that go beyond the FCC’s preexisting consumer safeguards, the proposal also provides for a new enforcement mechanism for the FCC to use. Specifically, the FCC would enforce these openness policies on a case-by-case basis, using a complaint-driven process. The FCC could move swiftly to stop a practice that violates these safeguards, and it could impose a penalty of up to $2 million on bad actors."
2 million dollars is chump change for big corporations. Google and Verizon are in the tens of billions of dollars. $2 million is barely a tap on the wrist. This wouldn't act as a punishment at all for giant corporations. It's like saying, "Here, the FCC can sprinkle water on them from a distance." This, if nothing else, shows that your intentions for net neutrality are not serious.
Also, the "specialized services" are vague and are just ripe with the opportunity for abuse. We have net neutrality now. As the internet is, it has net neutrality. We don't need legislation claiming to grant it.
Don't be evil and stop thinking we're ignorant and uniformed and that you can convince us that you have the public's best interests at heart with this proposal.
Keep on spinning this, Google, but it doesn't change the FACT that you have reversed your position that was broadly stated in 2006 and have broken your unofficial motto of "don't be evil".
I have removed Google toolbar and have switched my primary search engine to Duck, Duck, Go. I will be transitioning my Gmail accounts over to another Webmail provider. Unfortunately there isn't a lot of options in the Smartphone market, but I certainly regret the purchase of my Android phone on Verizon now.
Good-bye, Google of old. It was fun while it lasted.
Even after reading this blog, I am still against this completely. This just opens the path for wired lines to die and wireless to take over. I'm sure they'll just start giving you wireless boxes saying well it's not a fixed line so your stuck with this. Sounds like a ploy to get people to go for it when the truth is in the long run were worse off.
Although I not 100% clear about what propose by Google (I doubt someone that look so clear and judge), it same like Google trying something that will benefit people in an economy and political way, so far as I know Google still keeping their philosophy. Someone commented change the search provider from Google to Bing, like everyday you use public transit with good service direct one station to office , because of the transit advertise something you don’t like an you choose to take a transport that need change few station and no services at all.
I really want to believe that this isn't for real.
Google, it's not too late to do the right thing. wireline internet is the past, and as wireless begins to become the new net neutrality battlefield, we need you on this one
Wireless is the future of the Internet, just as twenty years ago it was the future of the telephone. As more and more people drop land lines, wireline telephone regulation becomes more and more irrelevant. It means nothing to me. In twenty years, "wireline" Internet regulation will probably mean little or nothing as well.
And it allows walled gardens, and all kinds of exceptions, and...riiight. Sorry, guys, but this is the definition of a sellout. Maybe not "evil" in its strictest sense, but certainly cooperating with evil.
Net neutrality is simple: Nothing is prioritized or degraded for any reason and there are no exceptions. Anything else fails to promote "neutrality" in any meaningful sense of the word. If you no longer support net neutrality, fine. But don't fail to support it and then say you still do.
@Josh Highley: There are three glaring problems with what you are saying. Let show you some non-political realities.
1) The government regulation is merely going to keep things the way they have been up until now. Until Comcast challenged net neutrality it was an implied standard. When the Supreme Court ruled that there was currently no law that forced net neutrality it opened a door that needs to be closed.
2) A tiered internet system will raise entry cost for web based ventures which will actually limit the amount of competition. This will be great for telecommunication and already established web companies like Google and Verizon. For the consumer it means paying more for the same or fewer services and a squelching of smaller business that are offering legitimate services.
3) Since almost all cellular contracts are done on the basis of years it is most important to keep this aspect of the web neutral. There are more choices for wireless carriers than there are for wired ones. However, consumers only get to vote with their wallets once every couple years. Cellular providers can conserve bandwidth by capping their users total usage.
I guess my default search engine is yahoo now? Bing is retarded and IDK any good ones. Hmm... Sad that Google is waving the white flag due to "politics." I have "politics" at work, "politics" in my house and "politics" at school. Doesn't mean I just give them their way. I pose to you, Google, that this decision is a bad one.
The internet is not owned by the corporations, that is what they hate about it. The carriers are free to tier their services but they should not be allowed to block content.
You used to a champion of the people but it looks like you are letting yourselves be corrupted. Please think back to when you 1st had the dream of Google. You can do it better than this, you owe it to the people that followed you and told their friends how awesome you where. To the people that made your name a verb and a household word.
Think back, the sea of people that are ebb'ing way can flow to you again. Only if you fight for us.
Again, NONE OF THIS IS LAW, NONE OF THIS HAS PASSED, NONE OF THIS IS FINAL. This is a PROPOSAL which can and will change. This hasn't even been proposed to be a bill yet. We need to worry less about Google trying for net neutrality and you people not being satisfied and more about the looming ACTA treaty which will stop even Google and Verizon's plan from coming to fruition. This is a move to try and secure our net neutrality, ACTA is gonna but that in a coffin. We will have NO freedom on the internet after ACTA, we will have no freedom with our electronics after ACTA, and if we don't stop it, we will have no freedom period.
I will never support google again, say goodbye to your android sales and say goodbye to my business. open source and net neutrality are the only things that make the internet different and BETTER than any other form of media.
Google you have absolutely sold out. No amount of spin or rhetoric can change that indisputable fact. And btw.. it's not YOUR internet to bargain with.. It's OURS.. Just in case that's slipped your mind as you sit there counting the cash! Look forwards to the net 10 years from now.. A greasy sewage pipe spewing nothing but fetid commercial hard sell spam flavoured excrement into every home.
Why Google? You are selling out, we believe in you because you are powerful enough to not play by the normal rules. The "compromise" excuse is just that an excuse! Tim Wu has written several papers on this subject! Maybe you need to dive back into the actual implications of your decisions and understand that regulation is ok but the direction of the regulation is the core of the matter.
The Internet needs to be OPEN with no restrictions! I don't want a kinda restricted market nor do you want a kinda working application. The analogy works with anything. It works or it doesn't.
Restricting the internet kinda is a gross mistake and gaining government regulation to stop such internet limiting is exactly what we need. A simple and concise bill saying that wireless providers are not allowed to limit or hinder the use of a mobile device in any way.
SIMPLE
What is so terrible
You have taken the first step towards being another corporate giant with no connection with your supporters. True your filthy rich but at the end of the day you have sold out.
Also on a second thought. This smells of the last century up until the end of the 60's when AT&T finally was told not more forcing people to buy thier phones.
When the Carterphone Rules too effect.
Google you are giving the green light for such actions in the future.
Another misstep in the history of R&D and telecoms. Will you ever learn that compromise is not an answer. Politics is something a very powerful company like Google should not be afraid of.
You folded. SIMPLE.
When you know something is true and right you fight for it, which tells me that you do not believe those truths anymore or at the very least you are showing the public that you are not willing to fight for such truths because of "politics"
"and to prioritize general classes or types of Internet traffic, based on latency; or otherwise to manage the daily operation of its network"
Straight from the document.
See the part that says AND to prioritize and ti continues to be vague in that reasoning. Anything can be a cause for latency. I am an IT major emphasizing in network management, I could classify anything as a latency problem
For people who do not know what latency is, it is the delay in transmission of information between the sender and receiver and in some cases round trip. It is the time it takes for the information to come and be processed.
A network managing ISP (internet service provider) could classify anything as latency and lower its priority.
The document is so vague I could spin it in any direction
Google you screwed us and in turn I hope we screw you in the coming years. It wont be overnight but I hope I am there to see it happen
Unless you correct your mistake...?
Will you get a spine again? and not focus on corporate profits.
I love you guys! Thank you so much for the work you are doing and for forecasting what you have done. I really think some people are too ignorant to understand what you are doing.
I have question on how should, in practice, behave an ISP under the non-discrimination principle: Let's imagine two subscribers of different products of a same ISP, the first with a 1Mbps ADSL access connection and the second with a 4Mbps connection. Let's then imagine that, in a given period of time, the ISP experiences congestion so it only has 2.5 Mbps to share between these two customers. Under the non-discrimination principle, shall the ISP give 0.5Mbps to the first customer and 2Mbps to the second? (i.e. 50% of the bandwith each subscribed to) Or on the contrary shall it make its best to offer the same service to both users, so offering 1Mbps to the first and 1.5Mbps to the second?
I have rarely seen a better example of why our country faces so many problems. REAL democracy tajes a lot more work than complaining in a public place. Most of these comments are no different than the half-drunk at the local bar holding forth like (1) they know anything, and (2) have done anything about it. I am in private industry and one of four principles in our own business; done it for almost 2 decades. I've made lots of money and grown the business large, and hit hard times, gone broke, and shrunk; then started back up again. Through it all my #1 client was the public sector. So I have seen and had to participate in real politics and real political maneuvering. I know darn well what "spin" and PR and damage control is. I don't own Google stock and have never done business with them (or Verizon) I have zero business interest in the wireless Internet market (or wired). But I can tell you this from hard experience, almost all of you have lost (or never learned) the difference between real corporate or political BS and the truth. NO ONE writes a blog like Google just did if all they care about is spin. Everything about it is different. The tone, the style, word choice, topics covered. Most of you are just knee-jerking and deciding what you believe is happening without thinking twice about it. Sean and a couple others said it well: it's easy to spout emotionally laden-opinions on the Internet; it is marginally harder to post a well-written, coherent argument, of which their are a few here. But most of these comments are of the, "I used to like you but now i think you dissed me, so I hate you and I am going to go sleep with your ex." To those of you that thought about it some and tried to engage; take it to the next level. What has anyone who complained here ACTUALLY DONE ABOUT IT BESIDES POST ON THE INTERNET? do you think THAT'S activism? Debate of the issues? Cry all you want about how life "ought to be"; that Google should pick a side and stick with it as if anything worth debating is ever black and white. How many letters have you written to congress? How many meetings have you organized? Town Hall meetings with Google and others invited? How much real research have you done on the issue - and reading some blogs and reports on the Internet is not research. How much money have you raised? How many position papers and white papers laying ought your alternative position have you written? How many volunteers have you organized?
Wow. I've always loved Google. Innovation, best search engine, I.. I looked up to Google. Now, after reading this article, all of that is gone. Immediately. I'll never use this service again. Disgusting how heroes to filth overnight.
FACT: socialism has never benefited man in the history of time. It fails and fails spectacularly with a large side of genocide
MYTH: google voice is free
FACT: google bridges all voice calls. translation: google is a third party is every conversation via google voice. google has nifty transcription software.
FACT: google could easily implement zRTP and (blind) transfers to execute calls but cannot be bothered to ensure end user privacy as that would be antithetical to google
MYTH: google has purely altruistic motives for developing the droid platform
FACT: mobile phones as other than phones opens up another privacy nightmare frontier especially with google's finger in every pie
MYTH: providers will not cannibalize the internet
FACT: en masse ISPs "silently" removed usenet from their offering AND did NOT reduce monthly prices
MYTH: verizon believes the customer is always right
FACT: verizon is hell bent on inflicting "walled garden" mentality on consumers [isp and mobile phone]
MYTH: fios is awesome as is
FACT: MoCA is an abomination and verizon's ISP CPE is OBVIOUSLY designed to rape SIP traffice
FACT: neither the verizon druther nor the kludge of dsl reports is necessary to have functional internets, tv, vod, and guide: it will all play nicely with ethernet out from ONT
MYTH: google is being honest in statement five
FACT: equivocation
MYTH: google believes it's "up to .. the American public"
FACT: an informed, privacy conscious consumer base is not beneficial to the google bottom line
FACT: trampling personal privacy tramples free exercise of liberty
FACT: fascist regimes of the past would have been tickled to have google in their pocket
It's all written right here, it's obvious and in your face. The veil is thin and almost comical. Net neutrality dies with this move. The internet belongs to us, the people, the royal We. It does not belong to Google or Verizon or any corporation. They work for us, the consumer. If we let this go, we get exactly what we deserve. Sign petitions, write your representatives and threaten boycotts, people. Once it's gone, it's gone.
"Fails to make even Genachowski's tepid protections apply to wireless connections using mobile devices. With the inevitable explosion of super-fast wireless Internet connections during the next decade, it represents the most blatant sellout to the likes of Verizon and AT&T. Both companies view wireless Internet and phone service as the future. And both companies are among Washington's biggest spenders on PR firms, lobbyists and campaign contributions."
Does anyone by this load of crap. Maybe you should try to keep this post neutral and take everything out of it that has opinions. I can't believe the CEO's of the top communication companies are buying this s@*#. Maybe they should read Atlas Shrugged.
And yet I have yet to see a government-regulated net-neutrality proposal which doesn't, at its heart, boil down to bureaucrats dictating arbitrary standards about how traffic is to be routed and how to resolve DNS... These would be the same bureaucrats who constantly complain about the free exchange of ideas over the internet. I'm going to be generous and assume that Google hasn't managed to foresee how such regulation could, and probably will, be used to impose defacto censorship.
In essence, if Google had come out and said, "The internet should be neutral, and our search engine and Verizon's network are going to be," they would have my full support. I would even have considered going out and buying an Android phone since I've been wanting a smart phone for a while. However, since their tactic has been to attempt to bludgeon everyone into doing things their way by giving a large amount of control over to people who have publicly stated that they want to regulate internet speech, I will be sticking with my old-fashioned, "dumb" phone, and will be using a different search engine until they change their position.
"FACT: Another aspect of the joint proposal would allow broadband providers to offer certain specialized services to customers"
This part seams outrageous to me the internet is supposed to facilitate data transmission. Calling it a gaming channel or home heath monitoring does not change the fact that it is just a type data transmission. Google I want to trust and believe in you. I want to be able to say “Google may not make be perfect but when they find a problem it is fixed promptly.” If I pay for a data speed I want it regardless if I am browsing the internet or chatting with friend over a playstion/xbox/wii and my home heath monitoring equipment can be hooked up to my modem like everything else.
I think people should stop firing at google and realize the reason google only has to raise its pinky to be more open than the competition is because the competition is so evil. Go after comcast and the others because google doesn't have to work hard at all to have a more open business model than anyone else.
Google was pretty honest in this post... times are changing, and they have decided to compromise some of the most basic principles of freedom of speech and expression just to "keep up with the times." And they aren't trying very hard to hide it.
I think everyone should do their bit to spread the word about dangers to free internet, and that's why I decided to join the ranks and raise awarness among 3.800 people interested in my IT project, as well as 2.000 Twitter followers. I'm running a blog series on net neutrality issues:
This is Google's last effort to make a truck load of money. Why? Because a bigger and better piece of technology is coming along very soon. Every 10 or so years this happens, so I can't blame Google for having their last throw of the dice.
It's now Google's turn to drop into a slump. Rome's power didn't last for ever and neither will Google's. Boy can they see it coming.
Nokia had a ten year span, and now Google has had it's ten year span. Make way for something better.
Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences: Google's position on net neutrality makes me want to start using Yahoo or Bing.
ReplyDeleteLet's hope they're not too narrow-minded to recognize this misstep and change course.
Sure, Google has good, smart lawyers, but are they are sharp at figuring out what sort of evil loopholes weaselly telcom lawyers snuck in? Probably not as good at spotting it as they think they are, telcos have over a century of manipulating the legal system for profit.
ReplyDeleteTwo internets? Another greedy corporate scheme. Google sold out. I used to like Google. I am tired of blood sucking corporations dictating government policy and shafting the people.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that google comprimised its internet values is key. Just because something is hard, doesn't mean you need to comprimise. I also find it very naive that they really think its because of limited wireless spectrum that Verizion wanted to imposed "traffic shaping", QOS, filtering. Whatever you call it, its just new revenue stream they're looking for. With LTE and other 4G networks on the forefront, wireless is starting to surpass bandwidth for wired connections. Who knows the future of what new RF technologies they'll develop. UGH, so disappointing
ReplyDeleteI don't know what's worse the fact that Google sold out, or the fact they they are now trying to justify it on thier blog. I mean screw us and then tell us that it's really a massage. NO! GOOGLE SOLD OUT!
ReplyDeleteWhat ever happens in the future - this will be remembered as the moment it all changed.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't care what you are trying to explain Google but a truely Neutral Internet needs NO EXPLANATION. This is bad for consumers and you know it. PLEASE DO NOT fall in line with likes of AT&T, VZW, Comcast etc!!!
ReplyDeleteI've loved just about everything you've done, but if you keep pushing this, I for 1 am going to seriously reconsider my entire stance on you.
Cognitive dissonance is a sad thing to witness.
ReplyDeleteR.I.P. Google. On the bright side, the new "Be Evil" slogan will save you a few shekels in ink costs.
Do Know Evil... Googles new motto!
ReplyDeleteI'm hoping for a little help understanding something that may make the Google/Verizon wireless exception a moot point.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand the big deal about the G/V pact is their exception of wireless from the net neutrality rules.. another exception of new tech being at least initially excluded.
I saw a video of Vint Cerf recently where he spoke about what I recall as Ultra-Wide-Band radio, where the frequencies would be shared and that would address the available bandwidth issue of wireless internet connections.
If this is so; wireless internet connectivity will not be the bandwidth bottleneck, then it makes great business sense for the big telecoms to carve that off the regulated neutral internet.
So that would seem to hand over to the telecoms wireless internet connectivity, and it would indeed, especially for major entertainment networks.
What's to prevent anyone from building UWB wireless routers like they now have at every Starbucks or where ever someone would like to share their wired -and regulated neutral- internet connection?
Along with other developments like IPv6, which I believe will allow protected channels to make it easier to share a connection without opening up one's entire network.
So, am I way off base or is any of this even reasonable?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://bit.ly/9ZzI9S (google docs link)
ReplyDelete""It’s up to Congress, the FCC, other policymakers – and the American public – to take it from here.""
-- So hey Google, I took you up on your word.. I helped you out on your proposal and made some changes. Can you get Eric and Verizon's CEO to review this draft and get back to me?!
Thanks
http://bit.ly/9ZzI9S (google docs link)
Why, Google? WHY?
ReplyDelete"The greatest harm can result from the best intention."
I have in the past applauded google on its stand with regard to net neutrality. However this is a move against the very foundation of net neutrality.
ReplyDeleteAs a network architect I understand the need to manage network traffic for congestion, however I also know that the prioritization of data is a completely subjective enterprise. Verizon is asking to be placed in a position to make revenue associated with the "Type"
of data traffic and that is wrong!! Google has taken a leap away from the neutrality issue in opening the door for the "Pay for my data first" scam which is against all of the beliefs associated with neutrality. Making an argument that wireless networks are different from dial-up networks is absurd, as capacity on both networks is a problem, the number of connections that can be made etc... recall the AOL debacle where they ran out of modem capacity and struggled to increase this capacity in the wake of a lawsuit.
I do wish Google would remain the proud flag holder of the net neutrality fight, is seems they have been corrupted by the same environment that causes Oracle to abandon the open source community after Sun became its standard bearer.
This policy deal remains at the top of the minds of all of us who believe in a neutral internet, in the end Google will have become big business, and the Verizon/Google team will play the cards that make them the most money, it is just a shame that they went down the inevitable profit/loss path which in the end abandons the idea that everyone no matter how small should have equal access.
and I cry........
MYTH: Because Google doesn't do evil, it doesn't have to use spin.
ReplyDeleteFACT: This.
Mike, No offense but your post is so half ass backward..
ReplyDeleteYou open with "When Microsoft started being evil their reputation was gone in 3 years.. FOR EVER."
And close with "I have switched my search over to Bing"
UM HELLO BING=MICROSOFT! Your the biggest bandwagon jumper I've ever seen.... I'm just going to trust google, there is nothing wrong with someone trying to take action.. Sure you might not agree with everything but things could be 100X worse if left in the hands of just verizon, or just the FCC.
As with everything there need's to be a compromise, just because google drafted something up don't mean they agree with 100% of it.. but know they cant have it their way or the highway...
That's why the medicare bill took so long because everyone wanted something for themselves and no one even cared about coming up with a compromise.
In short, keep it up Google don't let bleeding hearts stop innovation. You've came thru before with many great products, as well as bringing jobs to alot of people in their times of need(and no , i'm not one of them) you can do it again. Good luck, stay true... Fuck the hippies.
I don't see why the FCC is so hell bent on being the ones to come thru and make a draft... Really if they were that concerned they would have done so back in 2002 instead of just being like "yeah we want out we dont want to have to work".. They had their chance to be hero, applaude google for stepping up to the plate. Now FCC decides they want to spend millions campaigning the issue, and using google as a propaganda tool instead of an ally.
ReplyDeleteThis whole plan is garbage. They should just stay Neutral. Both wireless and wired. If it's not neutral then it's just a way for money and rip people off.
ReplyDeleteDon't be evil
ReplyDeleteDon't be evil.
ReplyDeleteDon't be evil.
ReplyDeletethe internet is dead thanx to google
ReplyDeletethe internet is dead thanx to google
ReplyDeleteThis is easily the worst thing Google could have done for its image - corporate, or otherwise.
ReplyDeleteTo suggest that this is going protect consumers is lunacy. This is all about increasing corporate profits and eliminating the little guy.
I can't say that I'm surprised that Google (a huge corporation), would do what it can to increase its profits. But to do it in a way that is going to cost consumers so heavily is disgusting. To lie about it is revolting.
Just the fact that a person has to use their Google Gmail info to post a comment here speaks volumes as to what Google is up to.
Keep it up Google. You will soon change from hero to villian in the minds of those who still support you.
Those numbers are dropping fast BTW
>MYTH: Google has “sold out” on network neutrality.
ReplyDelete>FACT: Google has been the leading corporate voice >on the issue of network neutrality over the past five >years. No other company is working as tirelessly for >an open Internet.
And then you stopped. It doesn't matter what you did in the past if you abandon your work and move to the side of net control by big business and carriers.....
MYTH: This proposal represents a step backwards for the open Internet.
FACT: If adopted, this proposal would for the first time give the FCC the ability to preserve the open Internet through enforceable rules on broadband providers. At the same time, the FCC would be prohibited from imposing regulations on the Internet itself.
By exempting wireless access from the "Open" internet? Im not buying that.
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.
advocated for certain openness and in the spirit of compromise.... Hmmm what do you mean? Google was an advocate for openness when it suited its needs and now is not because its not practical in the wireless world?? This destroys net neutrality in the wireless world. I guess WIFI is next on your list of things to corrupt? I am sad.. I will comment on the rest of this stuff later.....
neu·tral·i·ty-the state of being neutral.
ReplyDeleteNeutral-not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy
So For the Net to be truly Neutral the ISP's would not aligned with or supporting any side more than the other. So basically the title should be changed to "If you have lots of money then you gets all the internets you wantz."
This is wrong. Keep the internet OPEN. Just because Google is now too big its got a right to make internet multilayer?
ReplyDeleteI strongly oppose this idea. GOOGLE SOLD OUT!
Ask you founders had this standards been here in 1998 would they have been able to start Google?
The fact: Google is trying to not let other Google come up.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35864746/Verizon-Google-Peoples-Legislative-Framework-Proposal-081310
ReplyDelete""It’s up to Congress, the FCC, other policymakers – and the American public – to take it from here.""
-- So hey Google, I took you up on your word.. I helped you out on your proposal and made some changes. Can you get Eric and Verizon's CEO to review this draft and get back to me?!
Thanks
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35864746/Verizon-Google-Peoples-Legislative-Framework-Proposal-081310
Google sold out.
ReplyDeleteGoogle, you're developing city-wide wireless networks, and we all know it.
ReplyDeleteFoot in mouth.
We were counting on you, Google. Why do you think everyone has been behind you?
You just facebooked yourself in the foot.
Time to get a new service provider, which bites, because Google, you used to be the best.
Google, how could you do this?
ReplyDelete"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."
ReplyDeleteI guess we get to wait and hope that as these roll out at the carrier's good time and pace we can always have hope that once they have their hands on closed networks that they will open them again.
In a pig's eye.
"MYTH: This proposal will allow broadband providers to “cannibalize” the public Internet.
FACT: Another aspect of the joint proposal would allow broadband providers to offer certain specialized services to customers, services which are not part of the Internet. So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability – so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet. Some broadband providers already offer these types of services today. The chief challenge is to let consumers benefit from these non-Internet services, without allowing them to impede on the Internet itself."
Here's this funny public Internet thingy again. I guess if you say it often enough we'll believe there's more than one Internet, right?
Now, onto more important things. The Internet (the only one) offers all these things already so what you propose does, in fact, cannibalize the Internet. It can do nothing else.
With respect to who benefits in the line "The chief challenge is to let consumers benefit from these non-Internet services, without allowing them to impede on the Internet itself." you obviously mean the carriers as the public/consumers'/suckers get aren't likely to given cell pricing in North America these days.
Anyway, as I said above all these things exist on the Internet now, so what's to impede already?
So let's be honest shall we what you're proposing is a collection of private, (most likely) incompatible TCP/IP based networks featuring such wonderful things as carrier and vendor lock in to sell things that exist now.
The proposal doesn't just allow cannibalization it practically demands it.
"MYTH: Google is working with Verizon on this because of Android.
FACT: This is a policy proposal – not a business deal. Of course, Google has a close business relationship with Verizon, but ultimately this proposal has nothing to do with Android."
Prove it.
"MYTH: Two corporations are legislating the future of the Internet."
I sincerely hope not.
REALITY: Google and Verizon come up with this dog's breakfast for their exclusive good reducing the public, once again to mere consumers, while grabbing for rights they don't have now to enrich only themselves.
Then offer this sad attempt at spin.
Google, in the process, has abandoned the openness that has allowed them to grow and flourish as this spin attempt shows.
In doing so it violates it's "do no evil" slogan while learning how to do so complete with spin from another corporation who are past masters, in many people's eyes, of "doing evil".
You just dropped further on the trust-o-meter guys.
Part 1 and I apologize for this being posted in the wrong order.
ReplyDelete"MYTH: Google has “sold out” on network neutrality."
As a conclusion it's reasonable given what follows.
"With that in mind, we decided to partner with a major broadband provider on the best policy solution we could devise together."
One leaving the wireline business as fast as they can but sure. And one on the record as saying it wants no regulation on wireless or wireline period full stop.
"FACT: If adopted, this proposal would for the first time give the FCC the ability to preserve the open Internet through enforceable rules on broadband providers. At the same time, the FCC would be prohibited from imposing regulations on the Internet itself."
There's a closed Internet out there????
Oh, you mean wireline only or public Internet or some other non sequitor.
FACT! -- There is the Internet and only the Internet. At least until we get down to the next true myth.
"MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless."
Yes it does now and forever.
"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."
On the donor levels no doubt and not to the good of the public or economy as a whole.
Put another way just who, other than yourselves maybe are you kidding here.
"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."
Other than a particularly well put example of B.S. it sounds like you've taken Verizon's stand as absolute truth rather than the, ahhh, exaggeration that it is.
One can manage a network without being discriminatory over protocols being used on it which is a great deal of what this is about.
"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."
Here's this open Internet thingy again. Repeat after me until you get it there is the Internet and there is the Internet. Or rather was.
"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."
Here it is! This must be the unopen, restricted, and private Internet!
Full transparency? Are you dreaming? From telcos and cablecos? Since when? Anywhere on the planet?
"Importantly, Congress would always have the ability to step in and impose new safeguards on wireless broadband providers to protect consumers’ interests."
Like the public/consumers'/suckers can afford the millions the telcos, cablecos and Google can afford in donations to buy votes??
You know there's a reason politicians are about as well liked as stepping on a slug in bare feet and less trusted as inmates in prisons for fraud.
No biggie. It had to happen sooner or later. As companies grow, large growth opportunities are harder to come by. Google too had to eventually fall in line with other large corporations seeking continued growth. The spin only appears more disingenuous because of the vaulted position they are coming from. Go make tons of dough Googlers! We'll buy the stock but keep our eyes peeled for the next Google.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf Google continues to pursue this avenue of thinking it will be an immense political mistake. Wireless internet is, of course, the only future of the internet. So to not include wireless in net neutrality is to have no net neutrality at all. I previously loved so much of what Google has done. This, however, has the ability to limit it all... to limit the internet. I ask you sir to reconsider.
ReplyDeleteGoogle is evil, and controlled by TPTB.
ReplyDeleteI love how the tone of this blog is spun so that it seems like Google and Verizon got together to do the public a FAVOR.
ReplyDeleteWe all know that Google is taking control of the internet because it is now a web powerhouse and misusing its powers to kill the internet as we know it. Splitting the internet into what can only be "elite service" and garbage, provider-fed and COMPLETELY NOT NEUTRAL, SLANTED internet.
Google sold out. Power lies in the hands of the public, don't ever forget that.
Do no evil, has now become do as much as evil as possible. Maybe I need to change to hotmail.
ReplyDeleteGOOGLE IS EVIL. They have sold their souls like every politician in this country.
The wired / wireless distinction is a sham, and Google knows it. Google WAS a strong net neutrality advocate. No longer.
ReplyDeleteThis semantic game on the part of Google is equivalent to the statements they made before they entered the apps business, smartphone business and every other competitive move they have made. Why are we surprised?? We just need to continue to monitor Google's actions and ignore the rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteEFF Deeplinks Blog:
ReplyDeleteThe definition of “reasonable network management” needs to be clarified and refined.
The cutout for “additional online services” puts innovations of the future Internet at risk.
There is no definition of what is "lawful content" is.
"For EFF, the first test for a network neutrality proposal is this: would it have clearly prevented Comcast from interfering with BitTorrent? In the Google/Verizon proposal, because of ambiguous exceptions like the one that allows an ISP “otherwise to manage the daily operation of its network“, we can't be sure that that's true."
EFF Deeplinks Blog:
ReplyDeleteThe definition of “reasonable network management” needs to be clarified and refined.
The cutout for “additional online services” puts innovations of the future Internet at risk.
There is no definition of what is "lawful content" is.
"For EFF, the first test for a network neutrality proposal is this: would it have clearly prevented Comcast from interfering with BitTorrent? In the Google/Verizon proposal, because of ambiguous exceptions like the one that allows an ISP “otherwise to manage the daily operation of its network“, we can't be sure that that's true."
As a librarian, I believe that Google needs to adopt something more or less like our American Librarian Association's professional code of ethics (http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/proethics/codeofethics/codeethics.cfm). It defines how we strive to provide unbiased, equal support and access to all resources; how we do not put private interests above public ones; how we protect privacy; how we respect intellectual property rights; how we uphold intellectual freedom and resist censorship; and much, much more. This is our "Do no evil," and our public service has followed it for decades before we formally adopted it in 1997. Doesn't it sound like Google's previous stance on net neutrality? But, then, most of we librarians work for non-profits whose goal is service to the public. It sounds like the corporate giant Google has become has forgotten its original ideals in the pursuit of profit. That makes me sad, as it seems that it is becoming one more company that we can not trust.
ReplyDeleteGoogle selling out has been coming and at long last here it is in all its glory. Congratulations Google. Officially now you totally suck. Switching to Bing/Yahoo as well.
ReplyDeleteWhoever is voting this Verizon/Google deal with their money and time go roll over and die in fire.
Wow this blog post is complete spin. Google? Are you serious? I thought we were buddies.
ReplyDeletePlaying to our fear of "government regulation" -- how seasonal of you. Please post a meaningful explanation of what you're doing instead of this meaningless myth/fact spin.
Shall I say "Bing"?
Absolutely disgusting!!!
ReplyDeleteFor a company that i have admired for years i never thought the word 'google' would leave a bad taste in my mouth....
Google started going off the track for me when they decided to make their own browsers. Felt like a very disloyal move to Firefox and for those who remember history. When Microsoft crushed Netscape, it was one of their more Evil moves.
ReplyDeleteSo I started to get the feeling that all was not right in Google-land. Then you had the China incident, another compromise, giving private records to the government, the HORRIBLE News Page redesign that is being set up to make them more money, while making it unreadable and this is just to name a few. Now this betrayal to everything you stood for and to us.
I for one and doing everything in my power to de-google my life and lord knows it won't be easy but I know it will only get harder later, when they show more of their true colors down the road.
You sellouts!
What people want is an open internet. I do not want two "internets", one for premium services and one for regular services. We already pay the ISPs for connecting us, we pay Google and others by accepting advertising and some of us pay a monthly subscription charge for services ie NetFlix, Windows Live for Xbox 360, World of Warcraft players paying a subscription fee to Blizzard, Carbonite for backing up our local data in the "cloud", etc, on and on. This is the way the internet is supposed to work. We don't want the ISP cramming stuff down our throats or being the gatekeeper of who can succeed in business being transacted over the internet. Why can't "the people" win this one? Don't give me that nonsense about stagnation in Washington either. We already don't expect them to do anything right, like securing our borders, recently saw a video of drug runners with AK-47's leading a line of smugglers carrying packs of drugs on their backs into our country! This happens, and our government doesn't secure our borders? ISPs and big corporations will be the drug runners screwing the American people daily. Is that what Sergey Brin and Larry Page envisioned for Google? Did they envision protesters where Googlers spend their days? Do the right thing, inept Washington or not, don't play Washington's game. Google needs to flex its muscles not cave in.
ReplyDeleteJosh Highley ... "I'd rather have increased competition in wired broadband instead of gov't regulation (which can be a slippery slope)."
ReplyDeleteThe slippery slope is to leave this without strong and effective legislation. The suggestions for wired networks are good in this proposal but there is NO reason to treat wireless networks any differently with regard to non voice call traffic.
The ONLY proviso should be that Telco companies are allowed to limit non voice call traffic at times when they need to do that in order to maintain call quality. When they do that they should be required to limit ALL non voice data equally in a non discriminatory manner.
The current networks were built on the basis of neutrality. Google made their business in that neutral world. Google would be nowhere today if the existing search providers had been able to buy preferential channels that negated any performance improvements that Google's innovative engine provided.
Telcos are already trying to eat away at that neutrality precisely BECAUSE there is no strong legislation to force them to do otherwise.
Strong legislation requiring non discrimination of data across ALL networks is essential now.
Google ... "So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability – so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet"
1) All of those services given as "examples" are part of the internet as it exists now.
- How are they different in scope to what the current internet provides?
2) The services will all be passing through the same limited pipelines. Providing extra bandwidth to "special channels" is not possible without reducing the bandwidth available to the rest.
- How are they separate and apart from the public internet?
Basically this policy proposal provides the ability for telcos to sell special fast track channels to established big businesses who can afford to pay for it whilst smaller companies and startups are limited to the "best effort internet." It will soon become essential for business success to be part of the "fast track".
This is exactly what the proponents of an open neutral net are fighting against.
I don't know?
... Are Google just playing dumb?
... or are they just plain dumb?
Another FAIL at pulling the wool over our eyes Google.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I'm concerned, all of those "Myths" are true.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I can't believe that Google would really be stupid enough to kill the open Internet. The thing that makes the Internet so cool is that anybody can post anything and anybody else can see it.
Remember way back in the day when Google was a search engine? Search engines are nothing without content. Google would not be what it is today without everybody piling on to look for reviews of Buffy or pictures of . . . cats. Yeah, cats. That's it.
If Google and Verizon get their way, the Internet will be nothing but another cable TV channel. And we don't need another one of those.
Go ahead, Google, kill the goose that laid your golden eggs. And in the meantime, how many of us will stop using Google products? I've never actually looked at Bing but I'm ready to start.
Google, leave this issue alone. You should fight for all data being treated equally on the net however it is accessed even if it means you end up on the losing side.
ReplyDeleteYou're pulling up the ladder behind you. Please stop, you're destroying your public goodwill and will end up detested.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFact: A free internet is one of mankind's greatest achievements and a huge force for future innovation and communication and general progress.
ReplyDeleteFact: Wired broadband is giving way to wireless and mobile
Fact: Google definitely sold out. This agreement may have some perks for the free internet but it is enabling the future of the internet to be controlled and oppressed by corporate powers.
Good job. I guess I'll have to find another provider for my search engine, email, browser, dreams - etc.
This is to all those people who are against this proposal. I am against it too, but what do you expect from a company that is nurtured by capitalism? You cant expect any company to make huge profits while at the same time being moral, and it is naive to believe otherwise. Google "may" have championed net neutrality in the past but ONLY because they benefited from it, now Google benefits from advocating against net neutrality, it all chalks up to money.
ReplyDeleteClassical damage control release.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that net neutrality is a reality now, and this agreement would take away from that. What part of that does Google not understand? Or are you just hopping that we don't understand that?
We should never be lulled into believing a private company would look out for the public interest. Google is a private company and they will only defend their interest. Let's make sure we all understand that.
It's astonishing for Google to claim this is a victory for net neutrality even though it only applies to wired broadband and not to wireless broadband. We all know the future lies in wireless broadband, so this is a thinly veiled attempt to destroy the net neutrality in the near future. In 10 years very few people will use the wired broadband-Thanks for nothing Google!
The fact that this "pack" is so lengthy proves it's not neutral at all.
ReplyDeleteGoogle, I'll write your "framework" for you:
"Internet service providers, regardless of the medium or technology used, cannot prioritize, block or favor any specific packets of data. All packets must have the same priority."
There -- short, simple and truly neutral. I'm sorry, but if your wireless technology is not robust enough to handle the demand, then maybe you need a different technology.
This is like a newspaper company saying that paper is in short demand, so we're only printing the ads (content that pays us).
This stunt has really changed my views of Google. They have fallen into the same mold that so many other large companies do: start out as the underdog, become successful, grow to an enormous size, then turn and crap on everyone and everything that got them there in order to protect their own interests.
Yes, they are sellouts and it is worse for them because they for so long have said they would protect the medium that made them successful. It makes them that much more hypocritical.
I like Frank's proposal:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/35864746/Verizon-Google-Peoples-Legislative-Framework-Proposal-081310
Much better.
Stop spinning a yarn Google and get back on the track to goodness.
ReplyDeletei plan to cut back dramtically my use of google.......net neutrality or go down like AOL fools!
ReplyDeleteNYTIMES EDITORIAL
ReplyDeleteThe Google/Verizon Payment Plan
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/opinion/14sat1.html?hpw
Mercury New Editorial
Opinion: Google-Verizon should prompt FCC to demand Net Neutrality
By Susan Crawford and Lawrence Lessig
Special to the Mercury News
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_15745767
Read them both. This is a call for boycotts and brand damage. Google is not Evil, They are Bad = "Google: Open Source Trojan Horse." Time for web-mobs and social-media intervention.
Mountain View California // Friday 13th 2010
ReplyDelete(Watch Broadcast in HD)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqrOCsKhxSk
* * * *
Google's California Headquarters was the target of a protest against Google's controversial proposal with made Verizon to alter how data and is treated over the internet. The protest was attended by national and international news media and press. The protest was organized by an association of groups supporting "Network Neutrality". The protestors were well armed with boxes filled with OVER 300,000 PETITIONS supporting "a free and open internet". And warned Goolgle and others with similar thoughts, that this was only a sample of the overwhelming support of an open and free internet and Net-Neutrality." The Groups spokesman: James Rucker (co-founder of ColorofChange.org) staged the protest at Google's HQ, in targeted attempt to make Google "re-think" their bold and controversial proposal made with Verizon and presented to the FCC.
The Petitions presented by the protestors to Google were cordially accepted by Google's representatives.
~ Gerard Ange'
© 2010 G.A.P. International Inc.
----------------------------
G.A.P. INTERNATIONAL NEWS SERVICE
and, LIVE-WEB.us Broadcasting
Foe Assignments & Bookings Call:
(415) 306-2525
To everyone who has said "Google is spineless," "Google sold out," "This is the end of net neutrality!" Pull your heads out of your butts and look at the big picture. Sure, ISP's aren't giving us internet like cable, they aren't giving more speed when connecting to Facebook rather than Myspace. They aren't doing it, because they can't get along and all do it. If there is no other option we are stuck with it, and ISP's HAVE the right to do this right now. They already throttle people! This is the first step in securing our internet as it is. Sure, there is going to be some more benefits to big ISP's like Verizon, but the thing is if there wasn't any compromise in the plan, Verizon would never even start to think of considering it, and leading the way for other companies to follow suit. So much of a possibility of having any legal protections, no matter how small couldn't happen without some drawbacks. It's just a matter of wheedling our way in, it's not going to happen over night, and it's not gonna be complete neutrality right away. But it's a start.
ReplyDeleteIn short, A truly neutral internet doesn't exist yet, and it can't exist in one policy, and it won't. Companies won't back it, steps in the right direction need to be taken. Also this is a PROPOSAL! This isn't law, it's not even been considered yet by court. Google is the only one trying.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html
ReplyDeleteHow quickly you forget your previous stances.
It is fine if you want to make money and screw over people Google, but don't write an overcomplicated 10 page letter saying that it is for the 'protection' of consumers. The U.S Government can barely handle physical regulation of trade, so Government regulation of non-physical properties is completely asinine.
Simply put, dont lie to us google. you sold out your customer base to make sure the government will take care of you. Goodbye google, you have lost a long-time customer.
Shame on you Google! You should be ashamed of yourself. When a company does something that makes me consider using a Microsoft product (Bing!) you know they screwed up big time.
ReplyDeleteThis is just a game of whose eyes are on what ball.
ReplyDeleteThey are trying to show how much they are 'protecting' wireline services, but if you look at the trend, they are helping to usher in thin clients (the wireless service) which will be charged for less discrimination in their Internet usage.
Google is a company which wants everyone to go thin in order to start a more mainframe-type existence on the Internet, thereby making it easier to charge and meter your services. The PC has been too powerful a platform, and software (and marketing companies like Google) makers lost control back in 1995 when it came to copying. Now that we have a 'trustworthy' Internet, the move to thin clients is inevitable.
Google is playing the "We are protecting you children by ensuring that wireline services go untouched" but aren't telling you that they don't want anything to do with wireline services, and more importantly don't want you to have anything to do with wireline services in the future either; they'll make much more money for their shareholders should they succeed.
Change your search engine to Bing, or some other company, and get away from these guys as quickly as possible before the noose is too tight.
This could backfire on Google. Some provider could deem Google searches to be unlawful content due to a vague DMCA takedown order.
ReplyDeleteThis will lead to horrible things if you don't take a stand here Google. In 20 years when only the biggest ISPs are paying each other for high-speed access and the small ones are all shutdown or bought out because they can't make a profit from paying these access fees will we see a true corporate controlled network. And then what?
ReplyDeleteWill you please get a copy editor before you publish this stuff. The content is fork-tongued, as many here have pointed out, but the style needs a hell of a lot of work too.
ReplyDeleteGoogle: Evil! And not too smart, either, contrary to the avalanche of PR they've inflicted on us.
The chances of everything turning out well for the consumer when industry regulates itself, is a myth described as the fox watching.
ReplyDeleteRecent examples of the results of such policies include massive recalls of various foods for Ecoli contamination, the BP oil spill disaster etc.
Come on Google we consumers are not as stupid as you think.
Thanks a a lot Google. Not. You made your fortune on the back of a neutral net and now you are denying that to those who would follow. The principle of net neutrality is sacrosanct. You are either for it or against it. e.g. You can't say 'All men are created equal' and still continue to have slaves. You must live up to these fine words and be judged by your deeds. Just because others are trying to screw up net neutrality, just because the regulator is currently hopeless doesn't mean you should give up and join the bad guys. Stick to your principles and just see what happens. We dare you.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from.
ReplyDeleteTranslation: Net Neutrality isn't necessary when you can simply switch carriers (Nevermind that cancellation fees are extremely expensive and prevent almost everyone from switching before their contract is up).
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.
Translation: It's expensive to upgrade these wireless networks to meet consumer demand so we'd rather just throttle your bandwidth and access to content.
Third, network and device openness is now beginning to take off as a significant business model in this space.
Translation: Our "open" Android devices that are carrier-specific stand to make boat-loads of money for us if we can lock people into using our services.
I am very curious to see Google's response to this avalanche of negative comments from users and expert bloggers. The users have stated their opinion very clearly on this matter.
ReplyDeleteNow Google has to make a choice: stick with the corporate plan and face the consequences of not being admired (and loved) by their customers (the world's people); or listen to the very explicit people's will and tell their corporate friends "I'm sorry, but this is not what the Net Neutrality that our customers want".
There is no possibility for compromise here.
I just hope Google doesn't come with the "It's for your own good!" answer.
Looks like it's time to go back to Mozilla.
ReplyDeleteI've been using a pay as you go this month and was going to wait for a new contract as soon as the android 3.0 phones roll out, but if my internet is being hacked up by a company that pulled an about face on it's customers, I don't see any reason I should stay or believe their old slogan.
Content providers are already free to buy as much uplink bandwidth as they want. But I as a user am paying for my uplink and downlink. This proposal would allow content providers to control that as well. Verizon wants to restrict what services I can connect to.
ReplyDeleteVerizon has no "right" to the airwaves; the public has granted it an exclusive license to use certain public airwaves. The public therefore has the right to regulate Verizon in any manner that it wishes.
Nice, though wordy way of saying, "we had to break a few eggs to make a proposed future omelet." The landslide of public anger with Google over this one isn't going to go away until they TRY to fix it. No sign of that yet. I'm very disappointed.
ReplyDeletedo no evil (unless it's beneficial to the bottom line)
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly what Tim Berners-lee warned everyone about years ago and now it is happening as clear as day and in plain sight.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Media corporations eventually swallow Google up; Google will always be remembered as the company that set the president for companies to restrict content on the internet along with Verizon. Then for search.
It is important that Google understands exactly what it has done here and that Google did not have to lie about it's position on net neutrality in the first place.
Evil persists when good men do nothing.
ReplyDeleteThere is currently no protection for anyone, Google just wants anything in place, anything at all; to protect the internet.
Unfortunately, Google lost as soon as they entered the net neutrality fight. If they do nothing, people will be angry, if they try anything and it is not absolutely perfect - people will be angry.
People also discount economic viability, it would ultimately be less profitable for a company to have non-neutral internet. AOL ISP is a perfect example of how non-neutral internet is not economically viable.
Evil succeeds when good men do nothing.
ReplyDeleteSo when the one and only company trying to get any kind of net neutrality legislation passed does anything short of perfect everyone hates them. Google unfortunately engaged in a non-winnable fight with net neutrality.
However, non-neutral internet is not truly economically viable, this was proved by AOL ISP, who ultimately only survived because of diversification.
When you have become the Walmart of the Internet in terms of size and buying power as Google has, then your pride begins to swell and think that you can bully people into doing what you want. You tell manufacturers how to build things, design things, and sell things to your advantage.
ReplyDeleteIt is time the people of the world unite and stand up to bullying big business and tell them that we, the people, are the bosses. We buy or don't buy their products, which in turn, determines who survives and dies in the world of free enterprise.
Google has made it big on the backs of small people all over the world. It is time to bring down this GIANT and show them who is boss. Walmart and other too-big-to-fail companies need to be reminded that, like politicians, their fates are in OUR hands.
Google was a small enterprise that had good intentions in its beginning, but even the road to destruction is paved with good intentions. Down with Google. Don't be so quick to adopt Bing, the red-headed step-child related to Google and owned by small computer GIANT Microsoft.
There are plenty of other web search engines besides these over-inflated behemoths.
Power to the people.
Keep Congress out of cyberspace. It is the last free frontier in the world.
Dear Google Corporation,
ReplyDeleteThank you for clarifying that you have lost your soul.
You have been my exclusive search engine and home page since I became aware you existed, many years ago.
As a result of this action on your part, I will never again use your services.
In addition, I will now advocate passionately against any of my acquaintances using it either.
Please let me know how this new policy is working out for you.
Sincerely,
Denis
How do you people think that Google makes money from you using them as a search engine or simply doing searches using Google? They make money from targeted ads in which they use your info that you provide to them in everything you do be it using a Nexus One or Chrome as your browser or sending email via Gmail..
ReplyDeleteSwitching search providers isn't going to hurt anything, or Google.
I'm reminded of Demolition Man when Sandra Bullock says "But all restaurants are Taco Bell, John Spartan". That, in a nutshell is what the internet will become if companies like Google and Verizon are allowed to submit legislation to government and it passes.
Google has sold out and so has verizon. Net neutrality means they can control what sites you visit, and what information you can research, and what types of responses you get to your research. This is like the Hitler propaganda machine, if you think, say, or research anything that could be conceived as anti liberal, anti progressive, anti democrat, anti government control they can keep you from saying it or seeing or researching it. We must have freedom of information and our rights must be protected.
ReplyDeleteGoogle is clearly caving in.
ReplyDeleteThe line
"MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless."
Should read :
"FACT: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless."
As the text that follows is unpersuasive and palliative at best.
Here's some another clear form of schizophrenic denial of the truth:
"broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability – so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet" -- WHY THE HELL... those *ARE ALREADY* part of the public internet.
Thus it should read FACT instead of MYTH: This proposal will allow broadband providers to “cannibalize” the public Internet.
The reasoning Google adopts is backwards and possibly intended to deceive.
They should take it back I say.
empty double talk
ReplyDeleteFor the longest time I have been a staunch advocate for Google...that is all in flux now. Google is a sell-out...“Our doubts are traitors and make us lose the good we oft might win, by fearing to attempt”
ReplyDelete~William Shakespeare
Why not work into your compromise that phones and devices be interoperable on all wireless systems. That creates true competition. Consumers would than pay for what they consume.
ReplyDeleteWhat you have now is a shell game with phone manufacturers creating a product that falls apart in a year, and phone companies underwriting the cost of this junk in order to contract users into a locked down position in exchange for the (NOT)free phones.
It's not enough that the machine tasked with protecting our rights is owned by The Corporate Beast. We now we have to swallow the illusion that any of the players actually gives a sh&t about the end user. They don't. Vote with your feet. Dial down your phone plan, switch to yahoo or bing and flip them the digital bird that matters.
A balance is always achieved by permitting a chaotic system to be chaotic. Google should understand this very elemental point. Any controls over the Internet will always impose an artificial effect on the Internet and curtail demand, choice and freedom. If people want to watch online video more than talk and Google thinks that VOIP packets should have priority, then they are imposing their own view and not the view of the World.
ReplyDeleteWith wireless looking to someday be how most people will get their Internet don't you think segregating wireless from wired sets a dangerous precedent?
ReplyDeleteGoogle beware: some info on Verizon I found using Bing.
ReplyDeletehttp://akkadianventures.wordpress.com/
Google, Thank you for being the first to finally lay a proposal for net neutrality.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with the majority of the user comments, which obviously feel that we have room to adjust this policy. However, I have trusted you with my business and personal information for many years now, and I see no reason to 'switch to bing'. I think that some users fail to link bing to the stagnant, greed filled company which is microsoft. I believe that you have the innovative spirit that all companies should possess. A spirit that Microsoft surely lacks. We view you as a philanthropist company, because you have built a reputation of being for the people, not for a giant profit. Although, your business is overwhelmingly profitable, due to the faith we have in your decisions and products.
This county has been hit with a crushing blow by the banking industry, and we cannot afford to have our only champion stray into the filth of political pressure, and person gain.
Google, please defend net neutrality as a truly open internet. Do this and I'll stand by your side as long as there is a fight to be had.
Come on Google, You threw your weight around against CHINA and WON, your saying you need to compromise with Verizon?
ReplyDeleteYour actions in CHINA made me a life long user of Google and a possible buyer of the Nexus One. Now I have to reevaluate our relationship, email, web browsing, everything. I loved you Google, love us again!
Do no evil. "NO" is not a variable its binary!
What amount of rubbish, at least Microsoft were not selling us they were the nice guys.
ReplyDeleteSwitching to Bing.
The internet is a planetary nervous system, and no one probably understands that better than google.
ReplyDeleteAt what point did greed trump the evolution of humanity?
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/05/business/fi-auction5
ReplyDeletethis will explain why google and verizon are "partnering to compromise". they don't have a way to "own" the wire. but verizon did spend almost $5 billion on airwaves 4 years ago. and google needs those for droid 10.7.
there has to be another amendment to the constitution of this country to declare the internet - no matter over wire or waves (or any future transport method) - to be a basic right. like access to water, health care, education. nobody, even god, should not be "enforcing" any "rules" as far as the internet is concerned. much less greedy humans with a "business model". this is not a political or business discussion. at this stage of human development is more of a human right necessity.
so, google, until you push a new amendment to the constitution to make the internet a basic human right your thingy about 'don't be evel' would have the same relevance as the declaration of victory bush did on the board of that carrier.
Oh! Thank God! It's just a myth!
ReplyDeleteAlllll... just a bad dream...
There's no place like home...
There's no place like home...
There's no place like home
dont touch my f****** internet i pay a high fee as it is >:|
ReplyDelete:( I SO want to still believe that a truly huge corporation can REALLY BE GOOD! Please keep the Internet open and fight for it!
ReplyDeleteNot happy... Consumer trend is Laptops, Smart Phones, iPad, tablets etc and Verizon 4G on the horizon, a lot more people are gonna be switching from wired to wireless. Wireless is a huge and net neutrality is every bit as important as wired.
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't know the full intentions of corporates, I do know that for a while I have been contemplating the best methods to allow a Safer but more controlled internet as well as allowing the freedom's that we all appreciate.
ReplyDeleteMy eventual reasoning was and is pretty clear, there should be a Parallel implementation of a secondary network.
The Current one stays as is, the new secondary network uses a secure tunnel from User to gateway to ascertain that no proxy was used, websites appearing on this secondary network would have to go through a process of legitimacy check (Perhaps limiting it to companies that have been in operation for at least 5 years to lessen the number of fake short-term company signups) and having security checks done on behalf of the domains registrar. All connections to the net can be fully IPv6 complicit and utilise the new SDNS protocols.
This secondary network doesn't have to be Worldwide but could be localised to country. After all as long as you have the continued freedom of the original internet, a secondary one isn't going to undermine the capacity for an individual to have Freedom. (Two networks is better than one closed censored system.)
The second network could have adaptive user profiles that identify a persons age (Based upon relevant data) when logging in to lessen the potential problems that age can cause. (Adults blocked from creating accounts on kids sites, or kids on adults etc)
Keeping the current internet as is means that there are less compatibility issues or teething issues, or issues caused by people not wanting to change from what they are use to.
Admittedly it would mean two different login's, possibly some sort of switch method on a router between a Secure super policed network to the insecure original internet (with of course an operators disclaimer suggesting there is no policing there etc)
As for the concerns of bandwidth, move all the premium services (via parallel implementation) to the new network, people then won't use those services because they won't have access to them.
But hey, one persons reasoning does not make a decent network build (much like two corporates reasoning might miss out on other peoples logical assessments)
FACT: Google >HAS< Sold Out The Public.
ReplyDeleteThe FUTURE of the internet is nearly ALL wireless within 10 years. Google isn't stupid, it knows this. Therefore, saying "Oh we support Net Neutrality for wired connections but wireless is simply too difficult and we have to allow Mega Corps the control they seek" is a PROPAGANDA tactic - Google is staging itself into a new power structure that oversees, restricts, controls & profits from the internet as it will be in the near future. Not only that, but as Google currently provides the most-used directory & search service, they will stand to ultimately control much of the internet on the whole. How are those "country-less" sea-faring servers coming along??
If Google decides to go forth with this proposal, it's my sincere hope that the public can band together not only to defeat the proposal/legislation but also to boycott Google and strip it of its current standing in the world. No such company, whether shortsighted for profit or convenience, should be given the trust of the public.
If you agree to any level of censorship you have just sold out everyone. The fact that you come up with half assed excuses is just proof you want to make money instead of doing whats right. I guess we will all be bowing down to our phone providers and begging for their mercy. Thanks for screwing us.
ReplyDeleteWhat we have now is NO regulation, so a broadband carrier could simply stop-or slow- specified content, e.g., Skype, if they wanted to. What this proposal offers is a way to prioritize voice and streaming video, and de-prioritize email, for instance, as long as the policy was neutral as to where content came from or was going.
ReplyDeleteFrom Larry Downes--"objections to the Google-Verizon framework take issue with features of the proposal that are identical to the FCC's pending rules. For example, both the Google-Verizon proposal and the FCC rules allow network operators to implement "reasonable network management" techniques, even if those would otherwise violate Net neutrality. Both approaches also recognize that some classes of Internet activity--including voice and video--already require and receive priority in order to maintain their integrity.
Giving priority to entire classes of content does not violate the Net neutrality rules, as proposed by Google-Verizon or the FCC.
"http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20013212-38.html?tag=mncol;mlt_related
That seems reasonable to me, not a sell out. The alternative is the wild west of no regulation at all.
Google didn't want to filter searches in China and now wants to discriminate traffic, two-class internet, that was what they deserved when they began so they wouldn't be what they are now.
ReplyDeleteFor me it sounds as: "We were two guys in a house who started up a multi-billion company, we don't want anyone else to do it". How? Make the traffic to new internet applications that could compete against Google slower so users will be annoyed. I'm very disappointed but not surprised at all.
After all, Google is a company, and all this open mentality with China is a personal problem of its founder who lived in communist Soviet Union, but when they can make money, they don't care to discriminate and make the fast services internet for the companies ready to pay, and the slow services for those who can't pay. VERY SAD FOR ME.
Sorry, google seems disingenuous at best here. I'm about as average a person as there is, but this latest power play on the heels of the "great wall of compromise" [re: the china sell-out deal] from google just makes them look more power and greed-hungry than ever. No wonder my whore of an ex-lover works there. bunch of soulless greed mongers
ReplyDeleteWho went off and left you two CORPORATIONS God? Don't pander and patronize the citizens of America with your self-serving doubletalk.
ReplyDeleteWhat you propose is CORPORATE FASCISM WITH GOOGLE, VERIZON, AND YOUR ILK IN CHARGE.
The Internet belongs to the PEOPLE, not to you.
I will be blocking all your cookies, and ads, henceforth, and advising all my clients to do the same.
Further, I will show my clients how to "adjust" your cookies, if they are required to view content, to ensure your ability to eavesdrop is limited or eliminated.
Should you see reason and stop your attempt to takeover the Net, I, and others, will relent.
Enjoy...
Who went off and left you two CORPORATIONS God? Don't pander and patronize the citizens of America with your self-serving doubletalk.
ReplyDeleteWhat you propose is CORPORATE FASCISM WITH GOOGLE, VERIZON, AND YOUR ILK IN CHARGE.
The Internet belongs to the PEOPLE, not to you.
I will be blocking all your cookies, and ads, henceforth, and advising all my clients to do the same.
Further, I will show my clients how to "adjust" your cookies, if they are required to view content, to ensure your ability to eavesdrop is limited or eliminated.
Should you see reason and stop your attempt to takeover the Net, I, and others, will relent.
Enjoy...
Net Neutrality Should remain the same!!
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to you Google? You used to be beautiful...
ReplyDeleteGoogle definitely sold out.
ReplyDelete"Guys we wanted to get anti baby killing legislature passed, and we had to kill a few babies to get that done... but the new policy ensures its only legal to kill black babies"
^that is essentially the BS google is trying to sell you.
You cant pick and choose where you stand on issues as black and white as net neutrality or baby murder. Its either you are for it or against it. You cant be for *some* net neutrality, or *some* baby murder. Because if you are for any level of baby murder or any level of closed internet... YOU ARE EVIL.
After years of vehemently promoting google, Bing just got a new customer.
Any move by Google that limits or controls my access to information on a mobile or other platform is an attack on my freedom. I will boycott all google products and withdraw all accounts
ReplyDeleteGoogle is responsible to uphold the value for its customers, and remember the values of the freedom, and not exploit the corrupt nature for fiscal gains that government allows and has become has become.
DONT BE EVIL
DONT BE EVIL
DONT BE EVIL
DONT BE EVIL
DONT BE EVIL
DONT BE EVIL
DONT BE EVIL
DONT BE EVIL
DONT BE EVIL
DONT BE EVIL
DONT BE EVIL
DONT BE EVIL
DONT BE EVIL
DONT BE EVIL
Is it the 'political realities' that you're concerned about or the nice sweetheart deals with Verizon and other telecoms that you're getting out of this legislation the reason for your switch?
ReplyDeleteGoogle, Verizon, Comcast, et al should not be involved with the writing of this legislation. We've already seen what happens when companies write the legislation that is to regulate them with the catastrophes of BP and Enron.
@Tuta:
ReplyDeleteExactly right. This is a pathetic attempt by Google to justify what everyone knows is a gross violation of net neutrality.
@ anyone reading at Google Inc:
If you proceed with this Verizon deal, I will cancel my gmail account, stop using blogger, sell my google shares and switch my default search to Bing.
I will make it my mission to use the internet, before Google manages to destroy it, to encourage all of my family and friends to follow suit.
Evil, no. Sold out, yes. Google is compromising their morals, sure, but so do all other companies. The financial interests will always win out against "fighting the good fight" for an important cause.
ReplyDeleteGone are they days when I thought Google was a moral pinnacle. Sadly, this proves they are just another player in the oligarchy.
As a former Google fan, Android user, and consumer of Google services, I am so very... VERY disappointed.
Realizing network neutrality is impossible to get through the political system? Good. Give up, it's a bad idea to regulate this anyway. The only kind of regulation I'd be for is forcing transparency when network providers do "shape" traffic, so we can see what we're getting for our non-neutral network rates.
ReplyDeleteIf I use more water or electricity, I expect to pay more. If I need a particular kind of service I expect to pay the going rate for it. Why should internet access be any different? Let the market sort it out.
Um, Everything is working fine; so why make any change at all?
ReplyDeleteThe whole point of net neutrality is about NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES. Attempting to redefine the original term is worst kind of deception possible and goes against your own corporate motto of "don't be evil."
If I assume that you are for net neutrality and that this is indeed you trying to ensure that the FCC for the first time has the power to properly enforce it's rules on the internet, I have to look at this:
ReplyDelete"Fourth, because of the confusion about the FCC’s authority following the Comcast court decision, our proposal spells out the FCC’s role and authority in the broadband space. In addition to creating enforceable consumer protection and nondiscrimination standards that go beyond the FCC’s preexisting consumer safeguards, the proposal also provides for a new enforcement mechanism for the FCC to use. Specifically, the FCC would enforce these openness policies on a case-by-case basis, using a complaint-driven process. The FCC could move swiftly to stop a practice that violates these safeguards, and it could impose a penalty of up to $2 million on bad actors."
2 million dollars is chump change for big corporations. Google and Verizon are in the tens of
billions of dollars. $2 million is barely a tap on the wrist. This wouldn't act as a punishment at all for giant corporations. It's like saying, "Here, the FCC can sprinkle water on them from a distance." This, if nothing else, shows that your intentions for net neutrality are not serious.
Also, the "specialized services" are vague and are just ripe with the opportunity for abuse. We have net neutrality now. As the internet is, it has net neutrality. We don't need legislation claiming to grant it.
Don't be evil and stop thinking we're ignorant and uniformed and that you can convince us that you have the public's best interests at heart with this proposal.
Keep on spinning this, Google, but it doesn't change the FACT that you have reversed your position that was broadly stated in 2006 and have broken your unofficial motto of "don't be evil".
ReplyDeleteI have removed Google toolbar and have switched my primary search engine to Duck, Duck, Go. I will be transitioning my Gmail accounts over to another Webmail provider. Unfortunately there isn't a lot of options in the Smartphone market, but I certainly regret the purchase of my Android phone on Verizon now.
Good-bye, Google of old. It was fun while it lasted.
It's funny that the section on Android is really thin on details and persuasiveness.
ReplyDeleteI'm now seriously starting to doubt how much I should start trusting Google.
Even after reading this blog, I am still against this completely. This just opens the path for wired lines to die and wireless to take over. I'm sure they'll just start giving you wireless boxes saying well it's not a fixed line so your stuck with this. Sounds like a ploy to get people to go for it when the truth is in the long run were worse off.
ReplyDeleteI don't trust Google anymore after this. I think I will change to other social media and search service providers.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I not 100% clear about what propose by Google (I doubt someone that look so clear and judge), it same like Google trying something that will benefit people in an economy and political way, so far as I know Google still keeping their philosophy. Someone commented change the search provider from Google to Bing, like everyday you use public transit with good service direct one station to office , because of the transit advertise something you don’t like an you choose to take a transport that need change few station and no services at all.
ReplyDeleteI really want to believe that this isn't for real.
ReplyDeleteGoogle, it's not too late to do the right thing. wireline internet is the past, and as wireless begins to become the new net neutrality battlefield, we need you on this one
I'm sorry, but I don't believe you.
ReplyDeleteWireless is the future of the Internet, just as twenty years ago it was the future of the telephone. As more and more people drop land lines, wireline telephone regulation becomes more and more irrelevant. It means nothing to me. In twenty years, "wireline" Internet regulation will probably mean little or nothing as well.
And it allows walled gardens, and all kinds of exceptions, and...riiight. Sorry, guys, but this is the definition of a sellout. Maybe not "evil" in its strictest sense, but certainly cooperating with evil.
Net neutrality is simple: Nothing is prioritized or degraded for any reason and there are no exceptions. Anything else fails to promote "neutrality" in any meaningful sense of the word. If you no longer support net neutrality, fine. But don't fail to support it and then say you still do.
@Josh Highley: There are three glaring problems with what you are saying. Let show you some non-political realities.
ReplyDelete1) The government regulation is merely going to keep things the way they have been up until now. Until Comcast challenged net neutrality it was an implied standard. When the Supreme Court ruled that there was currently no law that forced net neutrality it opened a door that needs to be closed.
2) A tiered internet system will raise entry cost for web based ventures which will actually limit the amount of competition. This will be great for telecommunication and already established web companies like Google and Verizon. For the consumer it means paying more for the same or fewer services and a squelching of smaller business that are offering legitimate services.
3) Since almost all cellular contracts are done on the basis of years it is most important to keep this aspect of the web neutral. There are more choices for wireless carriers than there are for wired ones. However, consumers only get to vote with their wallets once every couple years. Cellular providers can conserve bandwidth by capping their users total usage.
I guess my default search engine is yahoo now? Bing is retarded and IDK any good ones. Hmm... Sad that Google is waving the white flag due to "politics." I have "politics" at work, "politics" in my house and "politics" at school. Doesn't mean I just give them their way. I pose to you, Google, that this decision is a bad one.
ReplyDeleteReally, I'm just sad. I love(d) Google. They really were different. Then they had an IPO...
ReplyDeleteThe internet is not owned by the corporations, that is what they hate about it. The carriers are free to tier their services but they should not be allowed to block content.
ReplyDeleteYou used to a champion of the people but it looks like you are letting yourselves be corrupted. Please think back to when you 1st had the dream of Google. You can do it better than this, you owe it to the people that followed you and told their friends how awesome you where.
ReplyDeleteTo the people that made your name a verb and a household word.
Think back, the sea of people that are ebb'ing way can flow to you again. Only if you fight for us.
Again, NONE OF THIS IS LAW, NONE OF THIS HAS PASSED, NONE OF THIS IS FINAL. This is a PROPOSAL which can and will change. This hasn't even been proposed to be a bill yet. We need to worry less about Google trying for net neutrality and you people not being satisfied and more about the looming ACTA treaty which will stop even Google and Verizon's plan from coming to fruition. This is a move to try and secure our net neutrality, ACTA is gonna but that in a coffin. We will have NO freedom on the internet after ACTA, we will have no freedom with our electronics after ACTA, and if we don't stop it, we will have no freedom period.
ReplyDeleteI will never support google again, say goodbye to your android sales and say goodbye to my business. open source and net neutrality are the only things that make the internet different and BETTER than any other form of media.
ReplyDeleteGoogle you have absolutely sold out. No amount of spin or rhetoric can change that indisputable fact. And btw.. it's not YOUR internet to bargain with.. It's OURS.. Just in case that's slipped your mind as you sit there counting the cash!
ReplyDeleteLook forwards to the net 10 years from now.. A greasy sewage pipe spewing nothing but fetid commercial hard sell spam flavoured excrement into every home.
Why Google? You are selling out, we believe in you because you are powerful enough to not play by the normal rules. The "compromise" excuse is just that an excuse! Tim Wu has written several papers on this subject! Maybe you need to dive back into the actual implications of your decisions and understand that regulation is ok but the direction of the regulation is the core of the matter.
ReplyDeleteThe Internet needs to be OPEN with no restrictions! I don't want a kinda restricted market nor do you want a kinda working application. The analogy works with anything. It works or it doesn't.
Restricting the internet kinda is a gross mistake and gaining government regulation to stop such internet limiting is exactly what we need. A simple and concise bill saying that wireless providers are not allowed to limit or hinder the use of a mobile device in any way.
SIMPLE
What is so terrible
You have taken the first step towards being another corporate giant with no connection with your supporters. True your filthy rich but at the end of the day you have sold out.
Sold Out.
Also on a second thought. This smells of the last century up until the end of the 60's when AT&T finally was told not more forcing people to buy thier phones.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Carterphone Rules too effect.
Google you are giving the green light for such actions in the future.
Another misstep in the history of R&D and telecoms. Will you ever learn that compromise is not an answer. Politics is something a very powerful company like Google should not be afraid of.
You folded. SIMPLE.
When you know something is true and right you fight for it, which tells me that you do not believe those truths anymore or at the very least you are showing the public that you are not willing to fight for such truths because of "politics"
Bad Call
"and
ReplyDeleteto prioritize general classes or types of Internet traffic, based on latency; or otherwise to
manage the daily operation of its network"
Straight from the document.
See the part that says AND to prioritize and ti continues to be vague in that reasoning. Anything can be a cause for latency. I am an IT major emphasizing in network management, I could classify anything as a latency problem
For people who do not know what latency is, it is the delay in transmission of information between the sender and receiver and in some cases round trip. It is the time it takes for the information to come and be processed.
A network managing ISP (internet service provider) could classify anything as latency and lower its priority.
The document is so vague I could spin it in any direction
Google you screwed us and in turn I hope we screw you in the coming years. It wont be overnight but I hope I am there to see it happen
Unless you correct your mistake...?
Will you get a spine again? and not focus on corporate profits.
I love my droid but seriously?
Good information, thanks for clearing it up. But at the same time it still seems as though ya'll are selling out. Did a post on this a few weeks ago.
ReplyDeleteRutledge Daugette
elrebrin.blogspot.com
I love you guys! Thank you so much for the work you are doing and for forecasting what you have done. I really think some people are too ignorant to understand what you are doing.
ReplyDeleteI have question on how should, in practice, behave an ISP under the non-discrimination principle: Let's imagine two subscribers of different products of a same ISP, the first with a 1Mbps ADSL access connection and the second with a 4Mbps connection.
ReplyDeleteLet's then imagine that, in a given period of time, the ISP experiences congestion so it only has 2.5 Mbps to share between these two customers.
Under the non-discrimination principle, shall the ISP give 0.5Mbps to the first customer and 2Mbps to the second? (i.e. 50% of the bandwith each subscribed to) Or on the contrary shall it make its best to offer the same service to both users, so offering 1Mbps to the first and 1.5Mbps to the second?
I have rarely seen a better example of why our country faces so many problems. REAL democracy tajes a lot more work than complaining in a public place. Most of these comments are no different than the half-drunk at the local bar holding forth like (1) they know anything, and (2) have done anything about it. I am in private industry and one of four principles in our own business; done it for almost 2 decades. I've made lots of money and grown the business large, and hit hard times, gone broke, and shrunk; then started back up again. Through it all my #1 client was the public sector. So I have seen and had to participate in real politics and real political maneuvering. I know darn well what "spin" and PR and damage control is. I don't own Google stock and have never done business with them (or Verizon) I have zero business interest in the wireless Internet market (or wired). But I can tell you this from hard experience, almost all of you have lost (or never learned) the difference between real corporate or political BS and the truth. NO ONE writes a blog like Google just did if all they care about is spin. Everything about it is different. The tone, the style, word choice, topics covered. Most of you are just knee-jerking and deciding what you believe is happening without thinking twice about it. Sean and a couple others said it well: it's easy to spout emotionally laden-opinions on the Internet; it is marginally harder to post a well-written, coherent argument, of which their are a few here. But most of these comments are of the, "I used to like you but now i think you dissed me, so I hate you and I am going to go sleep with your ex." To those of you that thought about it some and tried to engage; take it to the next level. What has anyone who complained here ACTUALLY DONE ABOUT IT BESIDES POST ON THE INTERNET? do you think THAT'S activism? Debate of the issues? Cry all you want about how life "ought to be"; that Google should pick a side and stick with it as if anything worth debating is ever black and white. How many letters have you written to congress? How many meetings have you organized? Town Hall meetings with Google and others invited? How much real research have you done on the issue - and reading some blogs and reports on the Internet is not research. How much money have you raised? How many position papers and white papers laying ought your alternative position have you written? How many volunteers have you organized?
ReplyDeletePart 1 of 2
Wow. I've always loved Google. Innovation, best search engine, I.. I looked up to Google. Now, after reading this article, all of that is gone. Immediately. I'll never use this service again. Disgusting how heroes to filth overnight.
ReplyDeleteMYTH: veracity of google's claim of do no evil
ReplyDeleteFACT: ad servers are privacy rapists PER SE
MYTH: socialism can work "this" time
FACT: socialism has never benefited man in the history of time. It fails and fails spectacularly with a large side of genocide
MYTH: google voice is free
FACT: google bridges all voice calls. translation: google is a third party is every conversation via google voice. google has nifty transcription software.
FACT: google could easily implement zRTP and (blind) transfers to execute calls but cannot be bothered to ensure end user privacy as that would be antithetical to google
MYTH: google has purely altruistic motives for developing the droid platform
FACT: mobile phones as other than phones opens up another privacy nightmare frontier especially with google's finger in every pie
MYTH: providers will not cannibalize the internet
FACT: en masse ISPs "silently" removed usenet from their offering AND did NOT reduce monthly prices
MYTH: verizon believes the customer is always right
FACT: verizon is hell bent on inflicting "walled garden" mentality on consumers [isp and mobile phone]
MYTH: fios is awesome as is
FACT: MoCA is an abomination and verizon's ISP CPE is OBVIOUSLY designed to rape SIP traffice
FACT: neither the verizon druther nor the kludge of dsl reports is necessary to have functional internets, tv, vod, and guide: it will all play nicely with ethernet out from ONT
MYTH: google is being honest in statement five
FACT: equivocation
MYTH: google believes it's "up to .. the American public"
FACT: an informed, privacy conscious consumer base is not beneficial to the google bottom line
FACT: trampling personal privacy tramples free exercise of liberty
FACT: fascist regimes of the past would have been tickled to have google in their pocket
It's all written right here, it's obvious and in your face. The veil is thin and almost comical. Net neutrality dies with this move. The internet belongs to us, the people, the royal We. It does not belong to Google or Verizon or any corporation. They work for us, the consumer. If we let this go, we get exactly what we deserve. Sign petitions, write your representatives and threaten boycotts, people. Once it's gone, it's gone.
ReplyDelete"Fails to make even Genachowski's tepid protections apply to wireless connections using mobile devices. With the inevitable explosion of super-fast wireless Internet connections during the next decade, it represents the most blatant sellout to the likes of Verizon and AT&T. Both companies view wireless Internet and phone service as the future. And both companies are among Washington's biggest spenders on PR firms, lobbyists and campaign contributions."
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone by this load of crap. Maybe you should try to keep this post neutral and take everything out of it that has opinions. I can't believe the CEO's of the top communication companies are buying this s@*#. Maybe they should read Atlas Shrugged.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet I have yet to see a government-regulated net-neutrality proposal which doesn't, at its heart, boil down to bureaucrats dictating arbitrary standards about how traffic is to be routed and how to resolve DNS... These would be the same bureaucrats who constantly complain about the free exchange of ideas over the internet. I'm going to be generous and assume that Google hasn't managed to foresee how such regulation could, and probably will, be used to impose defacto censorship.
ReplyDeleteIn essence, if Google had come out and said, "The internet should be neutral, and our search engine and Verizon's network are going to be," they would have my full support. I would even have considered going out and buying an Android phone since I've been wanting a smart phone for a while. However, since their tactic has been to attempt to bludgeon everyone into doing things their way by giving a large amount of control over to people who have publicly stated that they want to regulate internet speech, I will be sticking with my old-fashioned, "dumb" phone, and will be using a different search engine until they change their position.
"FACT: Another aspect of the joint proposal would allow broadband providers to offer certain specialized services to customers"
ReplyDeleteThis part seams outrageous to me the internet is supposed to facilitate data transmission. Calling it a gaming channel or home heath monitoring does not change the fact that it is just a type data transmission.
Google I want to trust and believe in you. I want to be able to say “Google may not make be perfect but when they find a problem it is fixed promptly.”
If I pay for a data speed I want it regardless if I am browsing the internet or chatting with friend over a playstion/xbox/wii and my home heath monitoring equipment can be hooked up to my modem like everything else.
I think people should stop firing at google and realize the reason google only has to raise its pinky to be more open than the competition is because the competition is so evil. Go after comcast and the others because google doesn't have to work hard at all to have a more open business model than anyone else.
ReplyDeleteGoogle was pretty honest in this post... times are changing, and they have decided to compromise some of the most basic principles of freedom of speech and expression just to "keep up with the times." And they aren't trying very hard to hide it.
ReplyDeleteThe inventor of the TCP/IP protocol, Bob Kahn, opposses net neutality. Why?
ReplyDeleteI think once again politics is trying to use the "fear factor" to get voters to come to their party (particularly the Tea Party).
The internet is free and TCP/IP is the defacto standard for most communications on the web.
If the government advocates a protocol overhaul, and it isn't "open source" - then you need to be worried.
Bandwidth issues, filtering and so on will take care of themselves in the free market.
Don't get on the fear bandwagon before you fully research it.
Well, there goes freedom of speech...or anything else on the Net!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI think everyone should do their bit to spread the word about dangers to free internet, and that's why I decided to join the ranks and raise awarness among 3.800 people interested in my IT project, as well as 2.000 Twitter followers. I'm running a blog series on net neutrality issues:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.stormdriver.com/blog/pipe-wars-the-phantom-menace/
Let's all get involved, before it's too late!
This is Google's last effort to make a truck load of money. Why? Because a bigger and better piece of technology is coming along very soon. Every 10 or so years this happens, so I can't blame Google for having their last throw of the dice.
ReplyDeleteIt's now Google's turn to drop into a slump. Rome's power didn't last for ever and neither will Google's. Boy can they see it coming.
Nokia had a ten year span, and now Google has had it's ten year span. Make way for something better.