Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Google and Verizon op-ed: a path to an open Internet



Eric Schmidt and Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg have an op-ed in today’s Washington Post that further explains our joint policy proposal for an open Internet. They describe our policy proposal in detail and explain how our conversations were “guided by two principles: our commitment to an open Internet, and the need for continued investment in broadband infrastructure.”

21 comments:

Antonio said...

Does anyone still remember a couple years ago when US government asked all the major search engines for the search records and ip address of its users and Google was one of the only companies that took a stand for privacy and for consumer rights? While the other's caved, Google said it had principles and would "Do No Evil"..

Either Google has done a remarkably horrifying reverse-180 in recent times or I'm seriously beginning to think it was all elaborately staged all along.. Now we have Eric Schmidt openly stating that "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."... and just days ago he remarked "true transparency and no anonymity" is the way forward for the internet: "In a world of asynchronous threats it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you. We need a [verified] name service for people. Governments will demand it."

Compare the first paragraph and contrast it with the second.. This is duplicity and deception at its very best. Instead of standing up for consumers Google has caved in to big government in the name of profit ("Do No Evil", yeah right..) and basically will do whatever 'Governments will demand'..

It does make it all the more hypocritical the whole so-called "censorship" ordeal Google faced with China a while back..

I guess like with "Openness", and with "Neutrality", Google also picks and chooses when it wants to follow the law and which nation's "legality" it wants to abide by. Instead of gracefully bowing out (Google can't compete with Baudi in mainland China) it created this whole sensationalism crying wolf with the pretext of "openness", "anti-censorship".. when in fact it was the school yard bully all along. Not satisfied that Google is already in bed with the Obama administration, CIA and NSA, Google also wanted to blackmail the Chinese government (since when did hacking have anything to do with censorship? two totally unrelated issues!)and give China an "ultimatum".. Is Google trying to get into the business of policy-making and geopolitical negotiations now? But sanctimony ill suits you Google, you have finally shown your true colors and now most of us can see through the facade and elaborate scheme of smokes and mirrors..

Antonio said...

Openness when it serves Google, and closed when it does not. Neutral, except when its not (and precisely where it will be mattering the most!). And Google follows the letter of the law, depending on if it likes the nation, and only when it serves them best.

And now we have this monstrosity of a Google/Verizon so-called "net neutrality" (doublethink) deal that has implications that are very far fetching.. This isn't just the death of the free and open and equal Internets as we have known it to be - this will lead to the curtailing of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and the freedom of press. Everything is transitioning online, from voice to mail to video to books and news ... everything everything will be online and it will all be wireless.. Google is basically trying to position itself to take our all aspects of our lives..

I always was suspicious of this "do no evil" company and knew its adwords business model (95% of its revenue) was going to be ultimately unsustainable.. but now in one fell swoop Google has self-appointed itself as toll-booth collectors of the public Information SuperHighway of which it does not even own.. (especially since the tax payers already subsided all of this twice-over, and internet service is expensive enough as it is!)

And Eric Schmidt is such a lousy BS-er when he stated Google "cares" about Net Neutrality because it will help create the next Google.. Yeah, like Google really cares about helping create an upcoming company that will supplant it. Sureeeeee I'm guessing that's why you are frantically buying out all the social startups and working on your Google Me Too facebook killer project, right? Cause you really care about helping out your next potential successor don't you?!?!

Hypocrisy is the name of the game here. At least with China I know I'm being censored and with Microsoft I know its an evil company.. Google you really should drop the act and quit pretending to be this innocent "do no evil" company that cares about "freedom" and "privacy" and "consumer rights" and all that crap.. honestly its getting old.. it turns out you are the worst of them.. the most backstabbing, evil, diabolical and hypocritical two-faced doublethinking excuse of a company I've ever had the displeasure to encounter.

Google has mastered the art of doublethink... I think we've all been "Googled"... Fool me once, shame on you. You won't fool me again.

Ian M. said...

@Antonio: You don't know what Government hacking of Peoples Private Email accounts has to do with Censorship!?!?

Also, you do realize that China was the one that folded in its fight with Google and now its citizens can get uncensored Google searches by clicking a link on Google's Chinese search site.

Lord Kitchener's Own said...

So, is Google's new slogan "Only do wireless evil"?

devshed said...

@Eric Schmidt: There is NO free speech, without anonymity.

Jeremy said...

It seems Google stands to lose a great deal of goodwill by associating itself with this statement.

Frank said...

I read the Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal and I see a lot of misleading deception here..

Under the Non-Discrimination Requirement a broadband Internet access service provider would be prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content, application, or service in a manner that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users.

Since Google-Verizon decided in this Legislative proposal to strip the FCC of its rule-making authority with respect to said Google/Verizon provisions, and since the FCC would be directed to give appropriate deference to decisions or advisory opinions of such groups.. Basically that's a roundabout way of saying big internet companies like Google gets to decide what is considered as "undue" discrimination or "meaningful" harm...

Even so, the Non-Discrimination Requirement states the presumption (of not allowing Prioritization of broadband Internet traffic) could be rebutted..

So its basically invoking watered-down meaningless and empty rhetoric that offers only the illusion of protection under a misplaced false guise of "Non-Discrimination".. Are we still supposed to "just trust Google" like we have always done in the past? Look where that's getting us huh?!?!

With the Additional Online Services clause for "wireline" broadband Google is basically proposing a "separate but equal" two-tiered Internet(s) which fully allows discrimination in the form of differentiated services and traffic prioritization on the premium elite version of the Internet.

And as for Wireless Broadband, (the other major and fast growing half) Google and Verizon basically wants to be given the green-light to be as anti-Net-Neutral as corporately possible..

And then to top it all off Google wants to basically get rid of the FCC and become judge, jury, and executioner of the InternetS..

Great Job Google. Good going. Whatever happened to Do No Evil?

Ian M. said...

@Frank: While I agree that not applying a net-neutrality standard to wireless is disturbing, your other objections are incorrect.

Google/Verizon are not striping the FCC of its rule-making authority. That was already done by the courts earlier this year. Google/Verizon are simply restating this fact in their Enforcement section.

Google/Verizon also propose that "The FCC would enforce the consumer protection and
nondiscrimination requirements through case-by-case adjudication" and "The FCC would have exclusive authority to oversee broadband internet access service"

So if these suggestions by Google/Verizon were taken up by Congress the FCC would actually have more over-site power not less.

The Comcast court case has effectively, if temporarily, stripped the FCC of any over-site power with regards to internet providers. While the Google/Verizon proposal may be flawed it is a huge step forward compared to our current situation.

Also, transparency is in my opinion the most important of the provisions. Without transparency it is impossible to hold companies accountable for the traffic-shaping policies they use as they will never have to tell you about them.

Seán O'Neill said...

Poor Antonio, he's had such a hard life. His demented rewriting of history and Alex Jonesness destroys whatever argument he was making.

Privacy is a thing of the past. My phone reports my location as does my ip address. What MUST be enforced is lack of privacy across the board. No government should be able to have secrets from the people especially seeing as those people can't have secrets any more.

Petals said...

evil google evil google evil google


Wow you have gone over to the dark side.

Kevin said...

Bad move google; now embracing the dark-side I see.

Steve said...

Google - what are you guys doing for God's sake?

Do you realize how this Verizon deal has already affected your image?

Don't try to pull the wool over our eyes by saying this deal will ensure an "open internet". There are too many "watchdogs" out there that know exactly what you're up to and that inform us - the Google users, soon to be ex-Google users if you go ahead.

We're sick and tired of corporate profiteering and Net Neutrality will remain our number one priority.

Be warned!

麗王王珠 said...

Never put off till tomorrow what may be done today..................................................................

sex said...

Too f–king good
I am sure he had a turn on that ass later on
סרטוני סקס.

惠桂刁惠桂刁惠桂刁 said...

先將一個人的生活過好,才有能力過好兩個人的生活................................................

14fortnight said...

If you continue down the current path that your organization is on, you will face consequences.

Users from across the country are speaking out against your proposal with Verizon (already one of the most evil corporate telecom corporations….strange bedfellows for a company such as yours) and if you do not immediately detach yourselves you can expect boycotts and a reduction of market share, tremendously. If you question the power of grassroots operations and the ability for people to organize on the internet to rally behind a cause, I suggest you look at your own history and rise to power.

Continued acts will result in a request that users:
1. Cancel google user accounts, including G-mail, google Docs, Blogs, google Books, and other user based google accounts
2. Threaten and organize boycotts of companies that advertise on google
3. Boycott your search engine
4. Convince stock holders to sell your stock

I hope that you will come to your senses and not turn the internet super highway into a toll road. Keep the net neutral.

Immediately revoke your relationship with Verizon...

soodoenim said...

The internet is a profoundly open place. Having been on a computer essentially from birth (Commodore 64, baby!), and on the internet from before I was a teenager I can't adequately express how this tool has helped to shape my perception of the world. I grew up in a small town in Central New York State, and the internet was my window to the world. It was the place where I went to interact with people from all over the world.

I can't really see a way in which Google, or Verizon, or the US Government or any one person or group working off of their own definitions of "openness" could possibly think that they can make something more open than what we have all created--each and every one of us--together.

It seems as though, if you (Google) wants to instill this idea in the public mind that you intend, truly, to "Do no evil," then you would recognize that there are many evils in this world. One evil would be the willing omission of truths (or lying, as some would say). I would like to see Google honestly and clearly elucidate the plan that is being put forth, and explain to the public ALL of its anticipated rammifications. Additionally, you should let your TRUE intentions with this legislation be known.

The public (myself included) have had it hammered into our psyche over many years that a corporation would do anything for a profit (including denying health coverage to infants, bogging down the governmental oversight process to ensure a minimum of efficacy, customer service as a euphemism for bettering the will of customers into submission to avoid hearing even the most reasonable claims, and the list goes on and on). I suppose that what I really want to say to you is that you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than an op-ed in the Washington Post in order to counterbalance the public perception of corporate behemoths like yourself (notice how I refer to you as a person, and not a nameless, faceless entity? Thank you US Supreme Court!) as shady double-talking snakes-in-the-grass.

Essentially, if you want to actually "Do No Evil," you're going to have to be shockingly, blessedly good.

vexorian said...

This is like those stereotypical evil corporations you see in TV saying something like "We want more green energy!" all while in reality their proposal is for making it easier for them to keep burning coal...

I am highly disappointed. If we know something about the development of the internet is that it will get more and more mobile. In effect, this forks the internet into an 'open internet' that will be doomed to obsolescence and a 'wireless internet' that will be full of anti-consumer crap.

In part, this is all due to cell/(smart) phones in general promoting the most anti-consumer stunts ever and getting away with it. Claiming that it is too hard not to do it. But that's actually more of a reason to make sure net neutrality covers them.


The worst of it is that GOOG owes the open internet its success. There is no way 2 college students would have had their success in a locked environment similar to what cable is now (which is what the wireless internet will become). I guess that GOOG do not care as they already have their success. But at least I think I do care. I think I also owe a lot to the internet, and I think that many people feel like that. I really hope GOOG would back off on this.


Maybe it is right that wireless infrastructure makes it too difficult to have net neutrality. I do not think that's a reason not to enforce it. It is actually a reason to stop selling it until it becomes feasible to do it in a way that does not threaten consumers.

Regarding the 'now' word in point 6. I do not think that's an excuse. Apologists may think that it means that once wireless becomes more feasible google and verizon will finally promote net neutrality in wireless services. But it is not an appropriate time to be so naive. We need net neutrality in wireless services NOW. Not an empty promise to have it within five years.

Silent Riot said...

What happened to "Do No Evil"? I'm switching back from Chrome to Mozilla and from Google search to Yahoo.

You have no idea how outraged your ex-fans are now. My friends and I used to talk about how great Google was as a corporation, as an employer, how innovative Google was and how it was really a beacon of hope in the ugly arena of American corporations.

Essentially, what you've done was the equivalent to 20-somethings as telling a 4 year old that there is no Santa, no Easter bunny, no tooth fairy, and no God.

We're all incredibly disillusioned and disappointed in Google.

Don't do this. Find a way to back out. Give us back the confidence we had to proudly use Google products and services.

Once I saw the designs for iAds, I promptly made the switch to Android.

Don't make us switch back from Google powered phones.

Because we fucking will.

Wookets said...

Google needs to dump Schmidt and Page and let Brin run the company.

He seems to be the only ethical one left.

Smarty said...

Google, this blog post only rehashes your initial proposal, which I think is HIGHLY flawed. No network neutrality for wireless, "unlawful" content, network management, specialized services, etc, etc... these are all humongous loopholes which you purposely put in there.

I am extremely disappointed. And let's not even get into what your CEO recently said about privacy. Google, we will NOT forget this. This is the turning point.