Wireless is treated differently than wireline broadband access for a few reasons: While there are practical commercial limitations, wireline BB access uses a controlled media that is only limited by the number of lines or fibers that are physically run. Wires and fiber optics are the backbone transport for all terminations to end points/users. As such, these need be open.
The most leveraged/critical connection is that to the end user. No other media connects the user to 'whenever, wherever connectivity' like wireless. And due to 4G and B4G technologies, the use of wireless opens up a huge frontier of basic and innovative access.
Wireless faces the real world problems of a limited amount of spectrum and ever-changing 'media'. The air above your heads and around you changes because of walls, trees, rain, terrain frequency, interference... all of which are not directly controlled as is the case with wired/fiber media. That dynamic, difficult environment makes it a necessity to do a lot of signal processing that changes instantaneously "as the wind blows" so to speak. And that raises the cost and also the inherent technical necessity to control the way signals are sent.
For all the free Internet advocates, you need to put on your thinking caps as Google management has done.. the conclusion may be some compromise with vested money/spectrum monopolists, but, nonetheless, is the correct line of thinking. The devil is always in the details. Open Internet advocates should seek reasonable access for applications and content.. if Verizon or Google get access under particular terms, every other competitor or individual should have the same. Within Verizon or any other operator the cost and QoS should be equal/equivalent with all others. P2P torrent/donkey should be allowed access on equal terms as other bandwidth abusers that can detract from other users experience.
Hope Google aply those principles inside their own system and stop blocking user content(allegeing SPAM). SPAM must be set up for the user, each SPAM rule.
I've lost many important notification bacause of that. They shouldnt impede some content to get inside their e-mail system. If i don't like I simply mark as SPAM. As they say: "Users should choose what content, applications, or devices they use" (#1)
You've sold out, Google. It's sad that some people are posting crap like "way to go Google!" Apparently, they didn't read all the non-language you put in there. I wish you'd stop this crap, realize you don't own the internet and get back to being the innovation you once were.
What a load of cock-and-bull! If you read through the actual proposal and ignore the publicity bull**** in this blog post, its plain as day that Google is KILLING net neutrality with this deal, the exact *opposite* of their corporate statement "Do No Evil."
If Google continues to push this proposal to end net neutrality, I will waste no time in ceasing all usage of their services. I will not support a company that would prefer to pad their corporate coffers than to protect the public and their right to a free and open internet.
Things looked good till point the sixth when it all fell apart. Badly.
#6 proposes isn't an open internet or any kind of internet what it proposes is a collection of private networks belonging to cellular carriers which may or may not be somewhat compatible with the internet. I'll bet will not be.
Compuserve aka Compu$pend reborn!
So don't expect telco investment to improve their plant such as fibre to the house as a result.
I guess the deal Google gets is not getting their ads put anywhere but the top tier and other goodies on this network of Verizon's. What else Google isn't saying.
So Google didn't exactly sell out the open internet, they brought us a collection of private "internets" on TCP/IP instead on the public airways no less.
Nice try, Google. Pity no one buys it.
One question for Google. Do you believe in open anything any more? Open Internet, Open Source, open anything?
Or is the closed bed with Verizon too comfortable to go back to your open roots?
That you have the chutzpah to delineate how you think the FCC should regulate you is bad enough, but the fact that you and Verizon are dividing the Internet up like Poland is reprehensible.
Very disappointing. I expect better of Google. What happened to the old Google that was trying to open up wireless?? Hopefully someone at Google will realize just how bad this whole idea is.
So, essentially Google has changed its motto to "Don't be evil--unless you can get away with it." Talk about the foxes guarding the hen house. What a bad joke. Anyway, it was a nice internet while it lasted.
If the Internet existed to serve some obvious goal, it would be trivial to determine whether prioritizing packets would help or hinder its achievement, but as far as I can tell, It does not exist to accomplish any obvious goal. The net neutrality debate is essentially the Internet's own existential conflict.
Part of the supporting argument in favor of net neutrality says that prioritizing packets would not be wise because we cannot predict what the Internet will be used for in the future, and that those packet prioritization rules will inevitably end up in conflict with the goals of future internet users. (eg. The I. doesn't know what it want's to be when it grows up. boo hoo)
Ironically (is it?) the very act of prioritizing communications in any way, would set the I. on a one way path towards serving a particular purpose, settling the issue of whether it should have done so in the first place. (eg. The I. wants to be a good targeted advertising delivery system, nothing else.)
So what is at stake for the Internet is that same thing that is at stake when a conscious person has a mental breakdown over the purpose of their life.
Clearly this is a situation in which Verizon and Google want to write the new rules of Net Neutrality to their own benefit. Clever legislative coercion...
I love you guys, honestly. i just pray that you will rethink this decision and issue a statement tomorrow explaining your actions without PR spin. Please just be the one good company and say that you're backing down from the deal; Verizon tricked you into it; and you see the future of the internet being completely open rather than the one your 'deal' portrays as stifling innovation and killing the public internet. No one wants a thousand iTunes-style ecosystems, but we want more interoperating HTML5, feature-rich internets that ISPs hate for using up bandwidth. Please realize that what is good for the goose, is good for the gander.
this thread makes my brain hurt. half of you pitchfork wielding sensationalists didn't even read the parts about avoiding tiered charges, and the other half is just repeating the talking points from the website that linked them here. i am not paid by google/verizon to post here. almost everyone here is using the normal internet which is not to be affected. all this animosity over the futuristic wireless internet is even funnier. how many of you even know how complicated it is to provide that internet? do you really think we should be laying down rules on something that will not look the same every 2 years? don't most of you realize your just repeating what some news website told you to think? omgomgomg it doesn't say in the proposal that google doesn't intend to kill kittens!!!1!1!1 wtf!??!?11/!?/?!?! they are sooooOo000l evil!!.1/!
I expect this kind of monopolism from the big telcoms. Google bedding down with them to the detriment of the public at large is truly sad (and yes, let's say it again "just plain evil" in no uncertain terms).
Note the way they dance around the real issues in their joint statement. This is inexcusable. Let's hope it's reversible with the power of law behind it.
Get busy folks - it's damn near too late. A bunch of our own congressional representatives set the stage for this debacle awhile back. call 'em up. The FCC needs to step up too. The President and the Congress need to support the effort. No one owns the internet (or did up until now). Accordingly, it's not our government's to give away in the first place. Let's get goin' folks. Now please.
Why do some people think this double talk is a good thing? This is terrible. A lot of it seems to be completely against what you're supposed to stand for, no matter how you try to spin it. Goodbye Google, and a continued goodbye to Verizon. Not that most other companies are any better, but at least they don't try to pretend they aren't selfish, greedy bastards. DO NO EVIL my rump.
I think it is a great compromise. The existing internet with cumbersome Net Neutrarity rules will become the public housing of the digital age ruled by outlaw torrents and Viagra pushers. Mean while those of us who can afford it can move to the new tiered private system. We can also discard whole bunch of old legacy from tcp/ip as well. Hooray for return of commom sense.
that "lawful internet content" line is disconcerting. i'd like to know how that's defined.
not sure i'm following on #6, either. so, let's say t-mobile strikes up an agreement with microsoft/bing. it's fine if they limit or block google search access on the t-mobile network?
what's the point in drawing up net neutrality rules for america's internet if they don't apply to all types of internet access? sounds a bit hypocritical.
So, in your net neutrality proposal, you make net neutrality obsolete by not including it in wireless (which you and I both know is the future of the 'net) and by allowing tiered pay services that are "distinguished" from providers? Cute.
Do you expect the FCC to honestly monitor all these premium services, using taxpayer dollars? No, you don't. Which is why you're proposing they allow them. Because you're clearly fighting AGAINST NET NEUTRALITY.
Hopefully the FCC and Congress aren't as gullible and dumb as you're hoping they are. But I have my doubts. And who are you to be writing FCC proposals, anyway? This is outrageous. And sad. Your evil, Google, came in such a user-friendly package.
wireless, "alternative delivery like FIOS" ... you can't slice out the bottom tier of the OSI model and pretend it's not the internet anymore.
You're going to create networking islands. Islands the cell carriers already enjoy and are terrified of losing as things go digital.
MEDIUM OF TRANSFER IS NOT IMPORTANT. The very inclusion of this distinction _invites_ companies to bypass it. It's either a private network, or it's public over internet space.
I was hoping for a simple, general tiering model... not a system that allows companies to simply exclude themselves form net neutrality once the segment they own is large enough to stand on it's own.
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." --George Adam Smith
I've been on the Internet and its predecessor, the ARPANET, since 1986.
Ever hear of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", Google?
Didn't the failure Google Wave (or Buzz) teach you anything? Try getting out of your ivory tower of Babel sometime and find out what non-engineers think before you open your mouths and jam your feet in them.
What is a "differentiated online service"? The OSI stack instead of IP? Are such services expected to adhere to the end-to-end principle?
The most disappointing part of this announcement is the statement that since the "mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly" that means vendors and carriers offering mobile services should be allowed to discriminate by altering internet protocol conformance to further their business interests by blocking, throttling, or filtering against unfavored (i.e., insufficiently profitable) applications, services, devices, content, or destinations. If I'm reading that incorrectly, please let me know what I misunderstood.
How is this not just another mobile carrier trying to use their leverage to try to offer a highly commercial WAP-style subset of the internet instead of building out bandwidth to meet customer demand? Why is Google going along with it?
shamefull to see 1st how many comments were deleted. Specially when I came here cus I wanted to see google wern't really into censorship. The idea that broadband providers could cut off places like /b and all the other sites filled with dirt appealed to me but then it carried on and I lost a lot of faith in google. this will be the beginning of the end.
This will only reach as far as the usa. Your about to become the new china, but then maybe that's what they want? a bubble they can control. and under those regulations that's exactly what they will get.
A compromise is when two parties after the same object agree to only get part of what they want and stop fighting for it...Who the hell is this compromising with? I have been using google for many years; this may be the last if this continues to be the company line.
I'm inclined to adopt a "wait and see" stance here for exactly the reasons WiMax Pro discusses. I dealt with Comcast as a customer when they did cut off access to certain sites and slowed customers' internet to a crawl for downloads (note: not all downloads are illegal. Personally, I purchase - legally - probably close to a hundred gigabytes of data over the internet in a year's time), and I was paying for the top tier of access with them in terms of speed and bandwidth for just that reason as well as gaming.
Wireless, however, is a whole different animal. You not only have computers on wireless networks (a/b/g/n), but also reading devices (either wi-fi or 3G), smartphones (3G and 4G), gaming consoles, and a host of other devices. Yes, the future is in wireless - no one is disagreeing with the assessment - but the technology is advancing rapidly and it seems to me to be somewhat unwise to attempt to fully regulate technology that is still advancing and that may not exist yet.
What follows applies only to United States citizens, with the understanding that the world wide web - or the internet - while it may have originated as a US military project, is not now limited to the United States.
I do have some concern with allowing the FCC to regulate anything: the First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees freedom of speech in the following manner: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." We have interpreted this to mean (I believe, correctly) that the Government, or any of its agencies may not interfere in our right as citizens to freely express ourselves (provided we do not do so in a manner that is threatening - for instance, an individual who makes a threat against the life of another in a public venue should, rightfully in my opinion, be questioned to determine whether or not they intend to actually carry out that threat). In the past decade especially, the Federal Government under the past two Presidential Administrations (both Presidents Bush and Obama), has been particularly zealous in attempting to limit civil liberties in our country. As a medically retired disabled veteran, I understand fully what it is to live without the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights (the military gives up most of their 1st-10th Amendment rights for the duration of their term of service), but I did so voluntarily as a soldier in service to my nation. To ask or demand that ordinary citizens do the same in the name of "regulation" or "security" nullifies the basis of the law of the land. If the Federal Government were capable of sound regulation and oversight, I suspect our economy wouldn't be in the mess it is currently in.
I'm seriously considering dumping all of my Google products over this.
Bandwidth scarcity is just a red herring that has ALWAYS been used to justify the shift away from net neutrality. Don't believe me? Bandwidth scarcity is EXACTLY what Comcast used to justify its P2P filtering.
Google is just trying to cash in on their near-monopoly status by locking people into an "AOL-style walled garden," no more, no less.
William Gibson is becoming more prophetic every moment and these issues frame perfectly the fact that large transnationals are subsuming the function of the government. It's both spooky and comical at the same time that a telephone company and a . . a... (what, exactly to call Google? - 'anti-evilness organization'?) can say with a straight face things like "[our] proposal spells out the FCC’s role and authority". In the old days, the Congress and administrative agencies "(spelled) out" regulatory roles for agencies such as the FCC. Get used to it. This sort of thing has been going on for some time (private enterprise ordering government around by virtue of the billions of dollars they control which leash and bridle the elected class) and perhaps the 'transparency' which our new Big Brethren are mandating here (in order to straighten out the FCC) is finally becoming a reality in corporate behavior as well. This sort of tripe sounds eerily like a third world government engaging in NewSpeak – all the more monstrous for the smooth, calming tones in which it is rendered.
Google thank you, first time when you really make your dont be evil thinging off.
nobody can really think that because wireless cell networks are new thing on the market is the reasson why bigmoney companies like telecompanies can regulate anything.
damn 4g come and it is lots better transparency, it can handle lots better that balance where 3g dosnt like usage peaks and so on.
if google make thiskind big announce and point of view, then companies dosnt want improve technology anymore because they see that it isnt good business anymore.
What a lousy title for a document describing how the internet is gonna shut down and be exclusive only to big corporations. Shame on Google, shame on the premise that it started from academia and to promote freedom of information. Google must have learned from China and adopted the Chinese governments values for their own.
2 words....Other Countries? Other countries do not fall under the FCC regulations, so how do you enforce this... I would think with bigger problems like illegal immigrants, that this should be the last thing any company should worry about...charge more for content... what you gonna do, when people can't pay your advertisers cost, and your model completely crumbles?
This is the main interstates inter-global highways- make it not free, will block the and plug and limit the transportation which is also a national security issue for the US. US interest world wide globally is for free speech, info for all, etc. if companies can block content, decides on it, why not governments allowed to. Ie. google china fight is just for nothing.
dont do evil Goog!
Ill just say to Google that i love- Beware - not to make mistakes that will make you out of favor - where is still a lot of your charm come from. like the mistakes you make in BUzz, orkut, and wave. this might be one big one - you'll become 2nd Microsoft- that would cost you 20% of future market share. Is it worth it? to be like Microsoft that ppl don't want to touch their products not rightfully many times but still.
This is the main interstates inter-global highways- make it not free, will block the and plug and limit the transportation which is also a national security issue for the US. US interest world wide globally is for free speech, info for all, etc. if companies can block content, decides on it, why not governments allowed to. Ie. google china fight is just for nothing.
dont do evil Goog!
Ill just say to Google that i love- Beware - not to make mistakes that will make you out of favor - where is still a lot of your charm come from. like the mistakes you make in BUzz, orkut, and wave. this might be one big one - you'll become 2nd Microsoft- that would cost you 20% of future market share. Is it worth it? to be like Microsoft that ppl don't want to touch their products not rightfully many times but still.
The precedent you are setting by separating the wireless and wired internet is dangerous. The wireless industry has the tools at its disposal to ensure the quality of its network without throttling traffic. Prioritizing certain content undermines the whole point of the agreement, at a time when the wireless web is coming into its own. You are undermining the web. I have been a staunch Google supporter, but that support is about to end, unless you strengthen or clarify this new policy shift.
Good thing that they realized there is more profit in an open Internet than there is if someone tries to control parts of it. Lucky that freedom goes hand in hand with success here. More institutions should draw inspiration from this.
Google and Verizon promise net neutrality on the one hand, but propose to leave the door open for differentiated services in the future. This would allow Verizon, for example, to jack up the price of the "neutral net" to the point where the corporate-controlled net is the only practical choice.
We cannot leave the future of the Internet to selfish organizations like Google and Verizon. The Internet is a public domain and must be operated for the good of all people.
By opening a second set of lines you are stopping innovation. Instead of merging everything together you'll get a second web for the big stuff. But how to connect it with the www?
Truth is: You don't want it to be connected. Because with a new network you can charge for it way more than today.
It seems, Google is not interested in innovation anymore. Just take a look at Wave. An extremely innovative product, terribly explained. Instead believing in what you created, you killed it.
I have the feeling, Eric Schmidt is the next Steve Ballmer: A big, fat old cat just loosing it.
I work on the mobile space, so I can understand some of the concerns of wireless providers to have their networks saturated by a few heavy users. However, the compromise as currently stated here, I think, is wrong.
Rather than exempt wireless traffic from neutrality rules, I would instead suggest a (lets say) 5 years moratorium on the application of neutrality rules to the wireless space.
At that point, the FCC would reassess the technological state of the wireless market and determine whether neutrality rules are achievable and should start to apply, or the moratorium continue for another limited period of time.
With the rapid improvements in wireless technology, we need to keep corporations on target to deploy net neutrality as soon as possible. At the same time we do not want current users to experience bad service just because currently available wireless frequencies are saturated by heavy traffic.
... wireline (inventing a new term, or using obscure terminology to obfuscate is a time-honored tradition among legislation writers). With this in place "wireline" service will fade away and eventually be replaced by the vendor/commercially regulated Winternet where free speech and open content is frozen out!
Shame on Google! You are being a traitor to your own principles and the open Internet on which you have thrived. A sign you have gotten too big for your britches. Time to rein you in! Use non-Google while you still can!
Absolutely the most disturbing blog post ever written. This should be considered the first domino to fall setting up government (via lobbyists and the monsters that pay them) to controlling what made all these people richer than kings.
This is not "awesome". To my semi-literate friends, this means that Verizon, AT&T and other providers will use the RF Spectrum, leased to them by the FCC, like the cbale networks. If you want to put your show online, you will be relagated to public access channels, with very low visibility. When wired networks are no longer profitable, they have huge costs of maintaince, they will be left to rot and die, along with the idea of net neutrality.
wireless is not a new or emerging changing market. it has been held back by telecommunication companies because of their greed. there is no reason why we cannot come up with a set of rules that covers wired, wireless, and any new wireless technology that will come up. how about making it far reaching so we don't have to cover it again. and to all of you who say it is socialist crap well if the capitalist crap would be honest and above board we would not have to interfere,
this country is so screwed. nothing will get done because all the lobbyist and corporations will want a law to fit their greed model.
here is a thought. how about we come up with a law that doesn't have big business in the forefront and actually is for the people. well I can dream can't I.
This is like a nightmare out of a Roland Emmerich movie.
One of my favorite companies (Google) is giving the government more power in exchange for financial gain. Well, I suppose after all they are a corporation seeking only one thing, "the almighty dollar." I cant blame them for wanting to grow economically, but they seem to want the dollar more than they want to promote this so called "net neutrality" which really if you think about it is sort of scary.
Speaking radically but rationally I think if it is widely accepted within our government we may see our internet access being exclusively controlled by the government. Honestly, doesn't our government already have enough control? I really feel as though a global medium should have little enforcements. I mean for goodness sakes look at China. Google had to pull out of China.
Great, more government regulation. The internet should be completely free and open. This proposal is a step in the wrong direction. Google and Verizon should just stick to providing content, not deciding policies.
Google is merely trying to persuade you to back this non-existent fairy tale of "net neutrality" so they don't have to pay their fair share (i.e., much more than they are currently paying) for clogging up the internet with immense volumes of traffic.
Don't be fooled. Their motives are disingenuous, selfish, and ultimately defeating for the average person using the internet since there will be little to no motivation for ISP's and Tier 1 carriers to improve infrastructure to cope with ever increasing loads if they can't recoup their investment on it by charging higher prices. And what's fair? Having everyone pay the same amount regardless of how much you use, or pay according to how much you use? I think the answer to any rational person is obvious.
Tons of doom here guys, a little too much for my liking. Every caveat I see pointed out here is addressed in the exact same paragraph as the offending quotes.
No, it's not perfect, but it suits what the industry needs. At least the US has a company rooting for them, we're SOL here in Canada when it comes to Net Neutrality.
What we need to keep in mind is that this is a proposal to be sent to the FCC, it doesn't say that the FCC can't make alterations and close some of the loopholes....
I'm a longtime Google and Verizon customer, I use gmail and calendar, carry an Android phone from Verizon, and even use google apps for a non-profit i administer. i'm NOT convinced by this at all.
First, "Open Internet Coalition" is a slimy name for an anti-neutrality corporate shell. Just be honest and say "Hey, we want to lock in our market position over the next 20 years, raise the costs of market entry, and make tons of money."
Second, until my user agreement contract says "we [Google/Verizon] guarantee access to all content at speeds up to 2mbs, regardless of perspective or controversy," there's no guarantee against censorship.
Finally, you guys out in Mountainview have been led astray by your policy folks in DC. It takes what, 2-3 years for them to convince you that you should be dependent on favorable government regulation to make a profit, not the power of your ideas and customer satisfaction?!?!?
You say, "Wireless faces the real world problems of a limited amount of spectrum and ever-changing 'media'."
But those problems are entirely encompassed by the "technical necessity" clause of the pact.
The pact then includes a completely separate, redundant clause: wireless is exempt from net neutrality requirements, not just when technically necessary, but ALTOGETHER.
This sounds like like BP regulating off shore drilling.
My machine will send IP packets and nobody has any business what's in it. The postal services has no right to read my mail or the the phone company to listen to my conversations.
This is a sad day. Google has always put forth a quirky, exhuberant, and overall altruistic vibe. There was just something different about this company and it restored a lot of hope and faith, that there could be success derived from a simple philosophy of "Do No Evil". Ah how power corrupts.. Verizon has long been comprised of blood sucking leaches, but now Google's has fallen too.. Enjoy your billions boys.. You held stewardship of responsible cultural and sociological evolution in your hands and you compromised your founding principles.
Allowing a corporate entity to control the flow of information would be considered "evil", thus violating one of Google's guiding principles. This proposal is disturbing on numerous levels and I hope the public educates themselves on it.
Remember when what was good for the web was good for Google? Well apparently we can have that web and Google, Verizon and other Bigs can have their own.
This is very troubling. Will be ending my gmail account and permanently switching to a different search. Will also move my organization off google apps. So much for not being evil.
This is insane. We don't need the Internet to change. It must stay public, equal and open just as it already IS. If you want to create your own private network, do so by all means, but don't presume to take over "the Internet" and tell us it is for our benefit. Do no evil.
everyone who cares about real net neutrality, not this bogus plan hatched by corporate megalodons should sign these petitions: http://act.boldprogressives.org/cms/sign/google_evil/?source=huff1 http://savetheinternet.com/fcc-comments https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=356
Look, we all realize it costs something to bring us Wireless Internet. But we PAY THROUGH THE NOSE ALREADY! This isn't something they give us for free, but when I think I am connecting to the "Internet", I expect to be able to connect to the free and open INTERNET, not some service managed version that is controlled by corporate interests. It will become quickly impossible to regulate, and the FCC is having its *alls handed to it by Google and Verizon in this contract. Who are they to DICTATE to our government what they can do? What are we becoming as a nation if we allow companies to manage us?
I backed you in every decision even when it became shady at times. But now?
No ones listening to the consumer. Did anyone up and say hey Google, Verizon we want this? Last time I checked it was no.
Stop trying to make money guys and bring our network up to speed with other countries first before trying to sell me this. If stuff like this goes through, I swear I'm moving to Japan. Oh yea, It's open network there and 100 times better.
How about you send me an email google and we can talk.
The internet is currently, and should remain, public. This is an essential tool in the modern world for the communication of free speech. Regulation would clearly threaten this outlet for speech and is unacceptable.
Getting ready to completely bail on all Google products.
Thing long-term, Google. Your company has not stood the test of time, and you can be crushed by your former supporters if you continue to move in this direction.
It seems that google and verizon are getting cocky. Technically, the FCC does NOT need to consult with anyone before they enact policies on communications. It is their JOB, it is why the FCC was created, so why are all the companies that the FCC is supposed to be ruling over running the show. it is like letting BP and Exxon decide evironmentally friendly forms of off-shore drilling. This "compromise" is just a load of B.S. I did not expect better from verizon, but I really did hope for better from google. It seems they are selling out down the drain to try and monopolize themselves just the way microsoft did years ago.
Why is everyone so stressed out about "differentiated online services". Your digital cable and your VoIP bundle are examples. I can use the VoIP offered by my ISP or pay for a service... This language is put in there to acknowledge and encourage new services like this over the network while making sure there is not a loophole in doing it. Without defining it in someway do you really think the coming rush of digital TV/Internet content wouldn't have tiered services built in? Do you realize how easy it would be for Cable provider X to bundle a package with Console game maker Y to provide a better latency network product with "enhanced VoIP and Video". Under this proposal the product "must be distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules." Without this they could degrade those services at the packet level and squeeze 3rd party providers out of the innovation space desired by all.
Google and Verizon have decided what they want the internet to be, and want their wishes made into law so they can best capitalize on something they have no legal right to: Control of the Internet.
We have seen what happens when we trust corporate giants to decide what's best for the marketplace- i.e. The American People- and to self-regulate. It was all just peachy- Right, AT&T, AIG, Lehman Brothers, GM, etc, etc? This is nothing more than a ploy to take over the wireless market, and, if successful, will lead to a desire to take over the wired market as well.
If these two corporations have their way, small business like mine could very well see themselves having to pay a fee so that their websites are found via searches on wireless devices, and it could pave the way to even higher internet access rates when extremely popular sites decide to charge Google, Verizon, and other carriers that pick and choose what can and can't be accessed a fee to allow access to them. Before you know it, the internet will become as mired down as cable and satellite TV, and will be just as expensive.
For example, Google and Verizon could tell Amazon and eBay to pay up if they want it so they can be accessed via their wireless network. But, on the flip side, should they decline to acquiesce to this demand, people may decide they would be better off going with a wireless carrier who does offer them easy access to their favorite sites, or who does pay these sites' fees to give network users access to their web pages. It's a no-win situation, but only for the consumer.
Cyberspace should not be owned by these or any other companies for the sake of not only freedom of speech and expression, but for the sake of the free exchange of ideas. Google balked at China for it's actions against them last year, yet they're attempting to do much the same with the mere introduction of this "plan".
This is an evil, underhanded plan, and I urge all of you to not only boycott Google in terms of buying (and clicking on) advertising, but to steer clear of Verizon as well. Also, let your Congressmen and President Obama know just what you think of this.
Don't let the corporate giants decide what your internet is going to be! Speak up now!!!
I read this and I wonder why Google is selling out both long term collaborators and principles. Why does the of a delivery mechanism determine the level of neutrality? This seems to be a stance predicated on some short term business gain, be it a future alliance with Verizon to further promote Android or some other undisclosed venture. Whatever Google's reasons, they are short sighted and not in line with the interests of consumers.
A tiered internet for medical purposes--OK I could be convinced. For Youtube vs. Hulu vs. Netflix on different devices/networks? There is far less societal utility when you move that structure into the entertainment realm.
Google and Verizon have decided what they want the internet to be, and want their wishes made into law so they can best capitalize on something they have no legal right to: Control of the Internet.
We have seen what happens when we trust corporate giants to decide what's best for the marketplace- i.e. The American People- and to self-regulate. It was all just peachy- Right, AT&T, AIG, Lehman Brothers, GM, etc, etc? This is nothing more than a ploy to take over the wireless market, and, if successful, will lead to a desire to take over the wired market as well.
If these two corporations have their way, small business like mine could very well see themselves having to pay a fee so that their websites are found via searches on wireless devices, and it could pave the way to even higher internet access rates when extremely popular sites decide to charge Google, Verizon, and other carriers that pick and choose what can and can't be accessed a fee to allow access to them. Before you know it, the internet will become as mired down as cable and satellite TV, and will be just as expensive.
For example, Google and Verizon could tell Amazon and eBay to pay up if they want it so they can be accessed via their wireless network. But, on the flip side, should they decline to acquiesce to this demand, people may decide they would be better off going with a wireless carrier who does offer them easy access to their favorite sites, or who does pay these sites' fees to give network users access to their web pages. It's a no-win situation, but only for the consumer.
Cyberspace should not be owned by these or any other companies for the sake of not only freedom of speech and expression, but for the sake of the free exchange of ideas. Google balked at China for it's actions against them last year, yet they're attempting to do much the same with the mere introduction of this "plan".
This is an evil, underhanded plan, and I urge all of you to not only boycott Google in terms of buying (and clicking on) advertising, but to steer clear of Verizon as well. Also, let your Congressmen and President Obama know just what you think of this.
Don't let the corporate giants decide what your internet is going to be! Speak up now!!!
Google and Verizon have decided what they want the internet to be, and want their wishes made into law so they can best capitalize on something they have no legal right to: Control of the Internet.
We have seen what happens when we trust corporate giants to decide what's best for the marketplace- i.e. The American People- and to self-regulate. It was all just peachy- Right, AT&T, AIG, Lehman Brothers, GM, etc, etc? This is nothing more than a ploy to take over the wireless market, and, if successful, will lead to a desire to take over the wired market as well.
If these two corporations have their way, small business like mine could very well see themselves having to pay a fee so that their websites are found via searches on wireless devices, and it could pave the way to even higher internet access rates when extremely popular sites decide to charge Google, Verizon, and other carriers that pick and choose what can and can't be accessed a fee to allow access to them. Before you know it, the internet will become as mired down as cable and satellite TV, and will be just as expensive.
If these two corporations have their way, small business like mine could very well see themselves having to pay a fee so that their websites are found via searches on wireless devices, and it could pave the way to even higher internet access rates when extremely popular sites decide to charge Google, Verizon, and other carriers that pick and choose what can and can't be accessed a fee to allow access to them. Before you know it, the internet will become as mired down as cable and satellite TV, and will be just as expensive.
For example, Google and Verizon could tell Amazon and eBay to pay up if they want it so they can be accessed via their wireless network. But, on the flip side, should they decline to acquiesce to this demand, people may decide they would be better off going with a wireless carrier who does offer them easy access to their favorite sites, or who does pay these sites' fees to give network users access to their web pages. It's a no-win situation, but only for the consumer.
Cyberspace should not be owned by these or any other companies for the sake of not only freedom of speech and expression, but for the sake of the free exchange of ideas. Google balked at China for it's actions against them last year, yet they're attempting to do much the same with the mere introduction of this "plan".
This is an evil, underhanded plan, and I urge all of you to not only boycott Google in terms of buying (and clicking on) advertising, but to steer clear of Verizon as well. Also, let your Congressmen and President Obama know just what you think of this.
Don't let the corporate giants decide what your internet is going to be! Speak up now!!!
Net Neutrality is the governing principle of a truly free and open internet.
Google wanted Net Neutrality. They like free and open things, for whatever reason.
Verizon wanted to be able to squeeze extra money out of wireless communications. They didn't care much about wired.
Now, I can't say who reached out to who, but I imagine that Google, desperate to save Net Neutrality in some form, reached out to Verizon. Whom, IIRC was actually 'enemies' with Google at first. Google said, "You can do whatever you want with your wireless, but at least help us support Net Neutrality on wired broadband. Verizon obliged, seeing Google as a good partner. And this (see joint filing) is the result.
Anyone that say Google is violating their principles is sorely missing the sacrifice they made for *some* Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality was going to die quietly without this, so I'm thankful for it.
Oh and possomcrast, I imagine you want to be pissed of by totalitarian government policy or something. Net Neutrality isn't what you should be mad about. Look up 'ACTA'. That's what you, and everyone else should be pissed about, because it's a complete assualt on American freedom.
I am totally disappointed in Google's stance on this issue, given that the company's foundation was built upon the idea of an open and free internet. With the evolution of wireless internet, Google and it's partners are trying to stake a claim on what should be a momentous transition in American life and communication for their own profits and stifle creative, and possibly competitive, challenges to their superiority. It is a greedy and cowardly ploy. And I'm tired of the argument that wireless costs more because of signal processing, infrastructure, etc. We pay exorbitant fees to wireless providers for what is, in many cases, substandard service. The US lags behind European countries in both innovative mobile devices and bandwidth of service; lets not completely lose the plot on such a fundamental issue as net neutrality.
One of the slickest cons I’ve ever seen; far superior to Madoff’s Ponzi scheme and one that will cost us all far more than the billions Madoff took in his scheme.
How could NET NEUTRALITY be bad? Net Neutrality itself isn’t BAD, in fact it’s a great idea. The problem herein lies in the wording used by Google & Verizon, specifically 1 single word. A word which will fundamentally change the effective power of this proposal and that is the word LEGAL.
Because the definition of LEGAL is open to interpretation by the government it is in effect the same thing as saying “whatever the government approves of” which in short means censorship.
How can prohibiting something that is NOT LEGEAL be bad even if it is the government that makes the determination of what is legal and what is not?
It is not the government alone that makes the determination of legal but the government under the heavy influence of lobbyist which represent every form of special interest there is other than the general public. In short it will be the influence of every entity except the general public that will steer the government to determine what is legal and what is not. If you think this is crazy or conspiracy talk then simply take a look at the GMO or Genetically Modified Organisms lobby and how they have influenced the determination of what is legal to say about not only their food but the food by companies that have nothing to do with GMO. It is illegal, yes that’s right, it is illegal for a package of food that DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY GMO to say that it is GMO free or that it is made without the use of GMOs. Look it up for yourself since I’m sure many will not believe this.
If the food industry can convince these congressmen to make it ILLEGAL for accompany to say their food has no GMO then is it really that hard to believe that the entertainment industry will convince them to ban all media content not controlled thru the studios even if it is content not owned by the studios? While this could be left open to debate as to whether this is acceptable, after all property rights should be supported thru the law, how about the question of content which is not copyrighted but is offensive in some way to corporation, government agency or non-government organization like CARE or the ACLU?
Any entity that has any level of influence over our politicians which seems to be everyone but the general public (everyone but those who actually elect these politicians and whom these politicians are supposed to represent) WILL BE ABLE to change the definition of legal and make it ILLEGAL for certain speech to be available, in any from, over the internet, in effect squashing free speech and shutting down any public resistance or outcry to anything by a government agency or corporation or NGO. It WILL happen if the proposed Google-Verizon proposal is made law.
Very disappointed. I would expect something like this from the weasels at Verizon, but Google has typically been better than this. This is sad to see, since Google has been one of the only consistent powerful supporters of network neutrality, and if they're no longer interested in it (as this post clearly demonstrates), then there isn't much standing between Verizon, Comcast, and Cox and the "Value-Added Premium Plus-net, now with Twitter access!"
So basically, you want net neutrality except for new, premium services, which are sorta fuzzy right now 'cause they don't exist yet but you're creating a loophole in which they'll appear. Oh, and except for wireless, which you recognize is going to be more important than broadband (which is why you keep saying "broadband" over and over again to distract us).
Google, "Don't be evil" didn't protect us from you. It inoculated you against stupid ideas designed to make you into the next Microsoft -- the last company to make a mad grab for market share at the expense of ethics. Using force to lock down the competition only makes sense once you've become that kind of evil. And it only works until the next big thing comes along and renders your market irrelevant.
Not letting us comment on this using anything but Google / Blogger accounts is just rubbing it in.
One of the slickest cons I’ve ever seen; far superior to Madoff’s Ponzi scheme and one that will cost us all far more than the billions Madoff took in his scheme. How could NET NEUTRALITY be bad? Net Neutrality itself isn’t BAD, in fact it’s a great idea. The problem herein lies in the wording used by Google & Verizon, specifically 1 single word. A word which will fundamentally change the effective power of this proposal and that is the word LEGAL.
Because the definition of LEGAL is open to interpretation by the government it is in effect the same thing as saying “whatever the government approves of” which in short means censorship.
How can prohibiting something that is NOT LEGEAL be bad even if it is the government that makes the determination of what is legal and what is not?
It is not the government alone that makes the determination of legal but the government under the heavy influence of lobbyist which represent every form of special interest there is other than the general public. In short it will be the influence of every entity except the general public that will steer the government to determine what is legal and what is not.
If you think this is crazy or conspiracy talk then simply take a look at the issue of GMO Labeling; the labeling of food based on the fact it is GMO free, GMO or Genetically Modified Organism based foods are believed by some to be unhealthy. Regardless of what you believe on this issue the fact remains that some food has GMO and some does not and just as with other questionable additives or treatments of food the consumer has the right to know if the food is GMO based.
Currently the government (under its food agencies and regulators) with the heavy push of food giant Monsanto is pushing for a law that will make it ILLEGAL for a food product that does NOT contain any GMO to indicate as such on its label. That’s right, the law being pushed isn’t so as to prevent companies like Monsanto from being required to say their food has GMO but to prevent companies who do not use GMO to say so on the packaging labels of their food products. Not only is this nuts but it’s an absolute waste of our governments time & resources.
If the Federal Government is willing to push for a law over something like this do you really think they won’t use the ability to interpret LEGAL to disallow websites and or certain comments & speech that they do not like or that some giant corporation like Monsanto does not like because it speaks in opposition to something the corporations is pushing?
The Federal & Local Governments have for a few years now been using ‘Free Speech Zones’, an unconstitutional act by definition of the 1st amendment, in large cities to restrict citizens right to protest by limiting the place and times they may protest in effect preventing the protest. Do you really think they’ll hesitate to do the same with the internet once they have this proposal in place?
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..
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.
When two large corporations get together, it's always to make more money. That is the point of corporations.
When two large corporations get together to announce their great joint step for freedom, understand that hidden between the lines is going to be something that takes away freedoms. Otherwise why make a big fuss about it?
If it were as simple as doing the right thing, there would be no need for the dancing girls. In this case, the keywords that say so much are 'differentiated online services'.
In order to violate net neutrality, Google and Verizon are redefining what "the Internet" means. Shady, sad, and totally evil.
What happened to Google buying the white space frequency to create "wifi on steroids?" Wouldn't that essentially be neutral mobile broadband? Wouldn't that put Verizon out of business? Yes, yes it would!
Abandoning that initiative to partner (aka make money) with telecos is evil! DO NO EVIL!!!!
I will be trying my best to boycott google until such time as it returns to it's stated mission of;"Do no evil" I will change my homepage from the bare google search page, which I have used since 1999. I can live with slower speeds, not higher charges and tiered services. I expect this from Verizon, Comcast and the other greedy capitalist pigs, but I thought you were different.
No. This is absolute, well, I don't know any other way to put it other than this: bullshit. I hope this gets shot down with no hesitation. How about real, true net neutrality? Don't be evil? I think you're forgetting about that. This is a total let down.
What happens when these "alternative services" begin to take the place of the free internet? I've blogged about that possibility here: http://www.creditedresponse.com/2010/08/thousands-of-internets-google-and.html
You do understand the concept that the customer makes your business, right? Your colorful logo is turning to mud - this is not good. Not good, not good, shame on you!
The wireless data I pay for today is way too expensive: $160 a month for two smartphones. Most of that cost goes towards voice which uses the least bandwidth. This proposal will guarantee that giant wireless companies can continue to charge ridiculous amounts of money for "special" data. 20 cents for SMS? Yikes!
Google, why are you doing this to us? Did we not love you enough? I thought you were going to cherish the internet. I thought we were going to grow old together. I thought you stood for net neutrality. Google, I hate you.
@ Visalian: You bring up VoIP as an example of the sort of service that would be encouraged/engendered over the open internet under this agreement, but I think your example tends to cut against your argument.
As things currently stand, ISPs do indeed offer their own VoIP services, but you can also buy VoIP from a third-party provider, delivered to you over the open internet, because the QoS over the open internet is good enough to provide such service.
What keeps an ISP from degrading the QoS on its network to a point at which VoIP services won't work reliably? I think it is just the fact that people are still a little unsure about the whole net neutrality thing, so most big operators are probably scared to do something so blatantly anti-competitive. If Comcast all of a sudden had a network so crappy that Vonage couldn't run reliably on it, but yet it still continued to offer Comcast DV with good QoS, it's a pretty safe bet that someone at the FCC would more or less be forced to take notice.
But under the proposal, with 'differentiated services' clearly and explicitly cut out of the mix, how long do you think the ISPs would feel compelled to restrain themselves?
Google what you're doing is wrong! Why not listen to the public outcry? Ohhhh because you care much more about Trillions of dollars than doing the right thing. There really is no one, no company that can't be bought. Forget Android and Google, iPhone and Bing!
Good luck, try to control what you can while you can. If you upset the market you will go the same way as the newspapers and other businesses you replaced. I hope this is truly an approach worthy of the "Do no evil" motto Google supposedly has, but we have been lied to so many times it is hard to believe what we see. I will say that if this does not promote openness and freedom, the consumers will happily leave you and you will be replaced.
This is a smash and grab. This proposal opens the door to making the "Information Superhighway" into a toll road that only a select few can afford. Shame on you google . . .
I too have been a longtime google user, as well as a word of mouth evangelist for google's products. however, with this new joint Verizon measure, I don't believe I'd be able to support you.
the issue with neutrality is that it is all or nothing. having two tiers of service is not neutral. promising neutrality on the dying wireless networks, while capitalizing on the wireless ones, is not neutral.
in this matter, you are either for neutrality, or against it. my continued support, as well as the continued support of a large number of internet users hinges on your decision.
I agree with Piratekingdan, I have been a huge supporter of google for a long time. Your policy of openness has lead you to create some of the best software available including the Android os. Heck, without net neutrality your company would never have had a chance to grow into what it is today. You have made so much progress over the years and have become an industry powerhouse based off of your image as a good company that is only interested in innovation and free thinking. It is a shame to see you throw this all away for some money. You may not think it will happen but if you continue on this path google will be nothing in a few years and where will all your money be then? You still have a chance to right this wrong and restore my faith in my favorite company.
Good proposal! Just so long as the wireless exception gets closed up soon. Otherwise everything else would be a huge improvement over what we currently have in place.
Wow. Nothing has made my question my support of Google as much as this shameless bit of hypocrisy.
Perhaps Google should change their mission statement from "Don't be evil" to "Don't be afraid to reverse faux-principled opinions and screw consumers so long as we are in position to take advantage of it financially".
This is awful and effectively kills the established principal of net neutrality. 1) You surrender immediately by calling the current norm and bed rock of the net neutrality reasoning a "thorny issue". It's not thorny when it's the standard, it's under attack or more politely "being challenged". 2) What the heck does "recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly" mean? a) The principal of net neutrality is in place because (as you accurately put it in 2007) the nation's airwaves "are a unique and valuable public resource that belong to all Americans." How has this fact changed? b) How does a national market of essentially 4 possible mobile providers qualify as more competitive than the countless local ISPs that proliferated throughout the 1990's? c) By what possible metric is the mobile market changing more rapidly than the Internet did through the last decade's dot com bubble and even if this is true how does this possibly change the fact that the Internet is still a public resource? 3) Your fifth point creates "differentiated online services" or in other words, the exact opposite of what your second bullet hinted at protecting, which is not surprising since this "wireline" (not a word because it's a distinction without a difference) "neutral" network is protected by language no stronger than a "presumed principal". 4) You mention that your proposal will depend on annual reports to congress in order to protect consumer rights. How is this not moving from proactive consumer protections to reactive consumer compensation, thus enabling consumer abuses that would otherwise be prevented?
This ridiculous artificial distinction between "wireless" and "wireline" internet is bullshit, and you ought to know it.
Multitudes of young adults, myself included, already don't have landline phone service--who needs one when we all have cell phones? Given the way technology is going, it won't be long before most people's primary access to the internet is wireless as well.
Don't spin propaganda. You're not trying to protect the internet. You're trying to destroy it.
I suppose we could just wait for our clueless legislatures or big business to just capitalize on the open nature of the internet...I mean, its just a matter of time (riaa anyone?)
Or, those with the interest to get as many people as possible to use the internet as possible can step up and offer a solution that the chaotic bunch (many posting here) cannot do on their own...
Verizon and google make money when you USE the internet and encouraging that practice makes sense...as does much of the proposal, but I am not sure many naysayers has aftually read (or perhaps comprehended) it?
Make the fcc step up and do its job rather than be a roadblock and encourage online innovation?! I say go for it!
This is a sad day. Why is wireless different? Google has sold out. I'm now looking for alternative search engines, mail, docs, etc. Let my google boycott begin.
Don't be fooled. This proposal is very deceptive. More and more of the internet is being consumed by wireless devices every day. This framework simply states: "We're gonna let you have your precious vintage cable modem, but from now on you're gonna have to pay". Thanks, for nothing. Now I have to abandon my Gmail. How will my mom video chat with me? I'm heart broken.
NO for wired! NO for wireless! Net neutrality on all platforms must be strictly enforced.
Firstly because We the subscribers are charged by the providers for our connection speed. Consequently We ALL have the right to view whatever content we choose to view at the same speed. Providers have no right to adjust the speed dependant on which sites we are choosing to view.
Secondly because this will stifle innovation and competition. Smaller growing companies who can't afford to pay for increased bandwidth will be unable to compete with larger established companies who can.
How fast Google have forgotten where they came from! What happened to "do no evil"?
Google came from nothing because of their fast efficient search engine. Where would they be now if the speed of their search engine had been stifled because the established competition could pay to consistently out perform them?
I think the time has come for us all to consider what power the people have. It is time to make a stand. Consider this,... What if everyone who believed the net neutrality is paramount, and on September 1st 2010 made a stand. All of them dropped verizon phone, verizon wireless, verizon fios and verizon fios tv. What if all of the people who believe this is important, did a similar thing to google? Stopped using google for anything. No Searches, no email, no google voice, no google maps, no buzz etc? Do you think they would take notice? Not just for a day, but a huge slap in their face. No more google , no more verizon ever. If the people take a stand. the companies will surely fail quickly. While I would not want to see companies fail, I would prefer they live up to their word. When they don't and they think they are bigger than life, it is time to take them down a notch. Verizon as a company can be wiped off the map in mere months if just 40% of the people canceled their accounts. Google may take a bit longer, but keep in mind, the share holders would tell google what to do if they noticed a difference. If people saw verizon fail then sprint and att would not attempt such an idiot idea. I will be leave everything google and everything verizon on September 1st 2010. Please join me. Make a stand! On September 1st, 2010, stop using Google for anything. Cancel your Verizon accounts. Start to set everything up now to work around. Some people simply can not, and have some requirements and may only be able to cut some of the services. Others can cut them all as there is other alternatives. I will cut all their services on September 1st 2010. Instead of verizon wireless I will use sprint. Instead of verizon phone services I will use vonage. Instead of verizon fios internet I will use time warner cable. Instead of Fios TV I will use time warner Cable.
Instead of google maps I will use Bing. Instead of google search I will use bing search. Instead of google gmail I will use windows live or live.com
On September 1st, 2010 I will remove all things google or verizon from my cell phones and computer.
I will not come back to Verizon as I belief they overstepped their bounds. I will not come back to google as I belief with this mistake they should fail.
Good Bye Verizon Good Bye Google.
You signed my cancellation when you ended net neutrality.
Please join me and make a stand on September 1st 2010.
Congrats on telling us how wonderful your grand plans are for our protection, while exempting Verizon and others who might not allow your Android phones if you don't play ball their way.
Google's announcement of this agreement links to several pages that thing this is a good agreement, or at least not-too-bad. It does not link to articles like this one in Wired: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/why-google-became-a-carrier-humping-net-neutrality-surrender-monkey/
I trust Wired, mostly. The URL itself pretty much sums up that author's opinion. He points out several things such as, the hype about how wonderful this all is supposed to be for protecting our freedom from "wireline" carriers while specifically exempting wireless carriers from the same rules (such as, ummm, Verizon). He goes on to say it's about boycott pressure the wireless companies are putting on Android phones unless they can cripple and control them. He also mentions this:
(In an early sign of what was to come Monday, Google even removed, at T-Mobile’s insistence, apps from the market that let Android users use their phones as modems for laptops.)
No link to this article either: http://www.publicknowledge.org/alertfax/3299
Or this one: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/08/google-verizon-netneutrality
Say it ain't so, Google; please show us all the benefits your agreement brought to us, ASAP. We admired your stand in China, but now you bend over for Verizon, and T-Mobile, and who knows who else. Was it just an inferior legal staff? Give us reasons to trust you with all that data you collect and all the apps and offline storage you want us to depend upon.
it's not enough that there are already tiered costs for internet access? now you want to add an additional layer and charge extra in addition to the costs that these "new" applications will cost? this just sounds like a way to raise access rates. how will these new services/applications relate to the already tiered access costs for wireline networks? or is this just a way to charge more for wireless access because those costs will come down just as the cost of a cellular phone call did.
While I applaud your commitment to net neutrality on wireline broadband internet service, I disagree with your desire to have wireless internet free from such requirements. It is clear to me and many others that wireless will be the internet connection of the future, that in a matter of years we will be able to connect to the web from our phones -- soon to be mobile computers -- anywhere. Wireline broadband will be used less and less as our mobile computers become Wi-Fi hubs for our household and office internet access.
These connections will be over the public airwaves. As these airwaves belong to us, the FCC has an obligation to ensure that they are used in the "public interest" as with AM/FM radio. For this reason, it is more critical, not less, that all networks on these airwaves remain neutral and equally accessible to all American consumers and all American businesses.
how far you have fallen google...for all you supporters, read the proposal letter of the law...give providers to option of "prioritize content" is no less then a veil for pay for priority...Google, stop your activity or i will drop you so fast you will make a sound, can we say "bing"? dont want to do it, I have used google for years but your desire to capitalize and kill neutrality is greedy and against the prinipcals of true "freedom"
Well that's disappointing. I was hoping to come here and read something that actually refuted what the press has been saying but as it turns out Google has sold out.
Maybe it's time to get rid of the "Don't be Evil" thing. It's now officially hypocritical.
I'm saddened by the number of people who don't realize research, development and innovation come from the capitalistic system. Considering the track record of the last 50 years or so, I wouldn't let the government regulate my cat's litter box.
I feel that this proposal you've brought with Verizon is a huge let down. Considering the significant amount of power you've consolidated over the years, many have feared your actions. Until now, I never did. You seemed to be ethical stewards of information. However, this proposal is little more than a "foot in the door" against net neutrality.
If "prioritized" networks are built (wireless or otherwise), what stops companies from abandoning the open internet for their privatized networks? Why would they spend capital maintaining and updating the "free and open" internet when they have another network that demands the same resources but is a cash cow?
Please stand by your unofficial motto... don't be evil.
Incredibly negative public response. I would like to see Google publicly clarify their thoughts and intentions surrounding this proposal. For instance, why is it necessary? Perhaps provide some data/evidence that supports the claims of necessity in the proposal.
First of all: this proposal comes from within the corporate world, not the government. This is a capitalist nightmare, not a socialist one.
Second of all: How do we now avoid Google in order to protest this? I'd love to "boycott" Google by ending my use of their services, but Google has become my primary interface for the internet. That said, this would be a prime time for any potentially ample competitors to step up. I'll be keeping my eyes out.
Hogwash. Google (Don't be Evil) is now in bed with (even though the service is wonderful) one of the most Evil Companies on the planet. Verizon is the model for anti-competitive, anti-innovation, anti-consumer behavior. Are we really surprised that the result of this arrangement is the opposite of net-neutrality? This proposal in no way promotes net neutrality. Most future growth and investment is in wireless services. The argument that "wireless is a new and developing" business model that requires exemptions from net neutrality is identical to the argument used by the wireline carriers in their opposition to net-neutrality.
Oh yes, clearly VZ is VERY concerned about the"rapid deployment" of broadband. This is why they've been dumping their rural territories across the country (territories which for the most part are still stuck with dial-up). Go ahead and google "Hawaii Telcom" or "FairPoint" and "bankruptcy" to see how these spinoffs have faired.
This is clearly about creating an advantage for these giant incumbant companies and whatever new technology they have in the works.
Oh yeah. Clearly VZ is VERY concerned about "rapid deployment" of broadband, as evidenced by their rapid selloffs of all their rural territories, which for the most part are still stuck with dial up. Go ahead and google "Hawaii Telcom bankruptcy" or "FairPoint bankruptcy" to see how those ventures have faired.
dont play both sides at once. when verizon gets its tiered internet, do you think prices will raise or fall for you?
just keep it in mind for the future.
if verizon wants to send iptv over fios they can change the technology to have seperate frequencies for verizon and a seperate frequency for the internets. like how cable internet can get 45MB/s with half internet frequencies and half analog/digital cable tv frequencies.
why make 'online services' prioritized when they can do it now without touching the internet at all?
Here's a lesson in psychology: If you have bad news or need to ask for a favor, start out with 5 positive things to say, then slip yours in as #6, and then follow it up with another positive. No one will notice.
Unrelated fact: In a few years MOST of the internet will be accessed via wireless.
Reading through the baloney, you basically want to treat broadband differently than the rest of the internet, creating a two-tiered internet without real regulatory oversight where the broadband providers can block whomever they want, whenever they want, or slow down some service in favor of providing rich people faster service.
By gutting the FCC's authority, this proposal steals away the freedom and voice of the American people.
The internet was developed using taxpayer dollars. It should not simply be handed over to ilk like Google and Verizon who seem intent on destroying it for their own profit.
A horrible idea clearly implemented from the 'Horrible levels of evil' division at Google. I can write your free and open internet statement in far fewer words.
a) Data is data, no matter how it is delivered or what it is or where it is going. Every byte transmitted via any transmission method, existing or imagined in the future, is equivalent and will move with equal priority once on the network. Only the total amount of data delivered or placed on the network may be controlled by the service provider.
b) Service providers shall have no role as the enforcers of any DRM except for that of their own products.
c) Service providers shall never favor their own products or those owned by subsidiaries on their networks.
Google Fail. Wireless will eventually replace wired. There should be a clause that states that once it reaches a certain size or point that it is required to obey the same rules as wired Internet providers. I don't like the wireless proposals AT ALL, but if we must have them, then put a limit on it.
Cablemodems will disappear slowly - In just a few Years. The future is Wireless wich will be soon faster then cables for the homeusers..... New services, like IPv6 is, will sometimes be bandwith crippled an you will be forced to pai for something you already have now .
Ill buy some Google Shares to compensate that :)
PS: traffic shaping is generala useul thing. but NET Wide ?
Cablemodems will disappear slowly - In just a few Years. The future is Wireless wich will be soon faster then cables for the homeusers..... New services, like IPv6 is, will sometimes be bandwith crippled an you will be forced to pai for something you already have now .
Ill buy some Google Shares to compensate that :)
PS: traffic shaping is generala useul thing. but NET Wide ?
Now that I've calmed down and thought about it a little, I can see that Google really had no choice. If they want to compete with Apple, they need to make deals with the Telcos. Otherwise, Apple, which has far more ruthless policies will own everything on wireless, and Google will be shut out.
I am not sure what to think. In one way, it seems like Google trying to take over the Internet, in another way, it seems good that they are trying to make a free internet.
Congratulations are due to Google and Verizon coming together to articulate a vision for real net neutrality. If all content providers and carriers adopted these principles, then innovation and competition will continue to flourish on the Internet. I would like to see this agreement extend to wireless. I do not agree that this document should be a framework for regulation or legislation. Let the IETF adopt it. More details at http://blog.inphotonicsresearch.com/.
Gee Google, conspiring with the enemy, hu8h? Well, no more thinking you are the "good guys". As of today you get a red suit, horns, and a tail, emblazoned with "TRAITOR". let me make something very clear to you - your stance on net neutrality will not be tolerated. There will be no tiers for net service, and how dare you have the insolent temerity to think we will tolerate your stance. We will not! NO ONE gets to control the internet, or we will take it away from you, and your company can go the way of Alta Vista, Jeeves, and the other losers who dared try to defy the public. This is our internet, not yours, and neither Google, nor Verizon, nor even the FCC will be allowed any control. I highly suggest you reconsider your position.
If you continue to pursue this policy of closing off the internet , I will move my blog and stop using any Google products, and I will encourage everyone I know to do the same. I am extremely disappointed with Google's move to this policy.
No, case-by-case is B.S. and only pads lawyers' retirement plans. This is GARBAGE Google. You are taking a wildly about-face approach to what I thought made you stand out as a truly progressive company. You are just like the rest of them Google and this is one consumer who won't forget.
EXTREMELY disappointed. For a company who's slogan used to be "Don't be evil," Google sure is looking like the big bad these days.
How could a company that supposedly used to believe so strongly in the openness of the web make such a blatantly anti-neutrality move like this?
Google, you're such a joke. I hope some teenage prodigy creates some protocol very soon that reinvents the web and brings you to your knees. Until then I'll just have to hope the net doesn't go to crap cause of your actions.
Google and Verizon need to quit pretending that this is about the American people. We see through it. This decision was reached only by analyzing what your companies want. I built Google. We built Google. We built it as part of the internet, not as the king. If you want to push this, go ahead. But don't expect us to see it as a corporate takeover.
The Internet is one entity. How you connect to it is clearly your own choice. The Internet is already being capitalized out of existence! The Internet needs to be fully peer to peer with no service providers and no FCC and no regulation. If copyright protected content makes it onto the Internet, that's just the price we pay for an open Internet, you have to take the bad with the good.
There should be no differentiation between wireless and "wireline" Internet. Wireless is just a way to connect to the larger wireline network. The same transparency should be applied and I should be able to use the network for whatever purpose I see fit with the carrier staying neutral (and ideally not collecting any identifying information along the way). The hardware is mine, the software should be in my control and I should be able to use any carrier to download any data. Anything else denies the freedom of users which are far more important than the freedom of providers.
This is precisely the opposite of what I expect from Google as a company I respect. It is an insulting affront on the intelligence of the people who use Google's services and value net neutrality. It's as if Google has sold its soul to the devil and done a complete 180, making a speedy b-line away from previous statements assuring us that Google values net neutrality and respects integrity. I'm ashamed to have believed that a giant like Google could or would remain ethical. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Shame on you, Google. Shame, shame, shame. You have betrayed the people who supported you.
Google, the fact that you tagged this post "Net Neutrality" is ridiculous. I guess we're supposed to ignore the fact that everything you're proposing flies in the face of net neutrality?
Tiered service? Pretty sure the internet has been fine without it.
This proposal "empowers" users? How so? Sounds more like it empowers huge, greedy corporations like Verizon and Google.
Google... We've cheered you on, supported your successes and mourned your failures. We've trusted you to stand for all who want open, free access and open source. Please don't throw your support behind restricted freedoms on wireless. I'm not thinking those companies need additional support for their profits on my $30 a month internet access. Come on Google!
Differentiated online services? Learning the true scope of that ambiguous little catch phrase should make for an especially slow torment. I'm already looking forward to the years of fighting for the scraps of bandwidth the "undifferentiated" services will end up with when this naturally plays out.
Well, time to switch to something other than google. We all knew it was coming, you only be a big corporation fro so long before you bend your customers over.
"... our proposal spells out the FCC’s role and authority in the broadband space".
What a pompous statement! Actually, I think it's the People and Congress who spell out the FCC's role and authority in the broadband space.
I strongly disagree with the lack of the non-discrimination requirement for wireless. Wireless growth is exploding. Just because it is an emerging market doesn't mean it needs a tiered structure. When the Internet was still forming, its success was largely due to its neutrality for any size startup. There is no point in having neutrality on one network if it can be made obsolete or irrelevant through market forces.
The "Additional Online Services" section is completely bogus. What additional service could ever be "distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband Internet access service"? If the bits are traveling through the Internet, it's not distinguishable traffic on the Internet. All packets are transported through the same layer on the network at some point.
The length of this article makes it suspect. All you have to say is, "We believe in net neutrality for all publically accessible networks that attach to the Internet."
@ WiMAX Pro while you show a good basic understanding of wireless, a decent if flawed understanding of wireline and then go on to conclude a fair bit of bunk, quite frankly by discussing only the "last mile" in either case.
Radio spectrum is radio spectrum and you do with it what you will as a carrier. Contrary to being new radio spectrum is old hat for most telco and cable carriers and has been used for decades. 4G and B4G are signalling and other minor changes not requiring much, if any, antenna changes and at the switches a new software and some new cards for new hardware.
From what I've seen of it under two hours works per switch. In the vast majority of cases a simple software update would be enough. So much for the problems you cite there.
And yes, due to the frequency modulation aspect of cellular systems (FM requires an analog carrier by the way that the digital rides on), there are inherent problems. Most of which will never be overcome, by the way, because of the nature of FM broadcasts.
Oh, you forgot such imparements as snow, sunspots, volcanic ash clouds, mountains, large buildings, buildings with an overabundance of rebar and anything else that isn't line of sight.
While dynamic the environment is anything but difficult because telcos and cablecos have dealt with it for years without complaint. While it isn't without cost the processing of signals from cell switich to handset is reasonably simple as everything else including the call itself is handled after that by the existing wired networks which the cell switches hand off to once the calls are established.
In short there is nothing new or complex ahout handling signalling types that telcos (in particular) and cablecos have handled for decades both in the end to end analog world and now in the end to end digital world. Cost increases are, therefore, minimal.
From that end there is no requirement to hive off wireless into a quasi-internet/really private networks, at least no massively increased cost reasons. And no reason cellular companies can't afford it given the fact that North America pays about the highest cell rates in the world for the some of the worst service in the world.
BTW, QoS issues remain as they are now regardless.
Your conclusion indicates that we, the general public should ask of permission to use open protocols on these quasi internet/really private networks while handing over to Verizon and Google the right to control content. It seems because you find phantom costs where none exist, at least technologically.
Sorry I can't buy that. First the spectrum being radio spectrum is a public and not a private resource. While cellular carriers may control the spectrum slice for the establishing and maintenance of costs they aren't in control of the content either on a voice or digital call.
Nor is this about applications. Nice try though. The Internet doesn't give a darn about the application as long as it obeys the fully understood and open rules you can develop or invent whatever you want. Fill your boots.
BTW, medical monitoring can be done now across the internet by cell if there's an app to do it. Landline is more reliable for that kind of critical application though as it isn't as affected by things like weather and atmospherics.
At the end of the day there is no valid technical argument that the wireless spectrum should be "privateized". The only argument possible is naked greed. Oh, and in Google's case, doing evil. I can't figure out your angle unless you're one of these "greed is good" guys. :)
Now if Verizon or Google want to set up a private network to compete with the Internet then go ahead and I wish them luck.
They should still be compelled to carry the internet as well so we can see just who does better in the end.
Oh, and one more thing. Streamed video is the bandwidth hog not bittorrent. Bittorrent is used for an endless number of legitimate uses beyond so called piracy.
Hah. Is Google acting like Microsoft now? This is a harbinger of REALLY BAD things to come if its enacted or if those IDIOTS up in Washington can't legislate REAL Net Neutrality. This is NOT Net Neutrality!
This is now why I run the Opera browser and Duck Duck Go searches. You had your day as the harbinger of change. Complete Internet freedom doesn't look so good from above now does it...
You do understand that a "scalable internet" is built on exactly the same principles as the current dysfunctional broadcast television system, don't you? If Verizon and Google have their way, the public internet will be the equivalent of today's over-the-air free tv, while all of the best content will tucked away in premium content packages that will cost extra. Oh, and those premium packages will be given priority on bandwidth over the existing public internet. In other words, Google and Verizon are pushing for a system that reallocates bandwidth: the so-called "open" public internet gets less, and the fee-supported premium internet gets more. Oh, and you'll notice that the whole "openness" thing does not apply to premium services or mobile networks. Say hello to the corporate Internet!
This is horrific to read and even more horrific to think about. I think the people who are saying anything positive about this proposal are dense and don't understand at all the underlying issues here. All they see is you wrapping up communism in a pretty little package. I bet they will be wailing foul though, if they are ever forced to pay almost 50 dollars extra on top of what they are already paying, just to do things like watch a film on netflix, download music onto their i-pods, browse youtube, update their blogs and pretty much everything else they are doing now for "free".
This is outlandish. I hope and pray that anything like this NEVER comes to pass. You'll be alienating about 90% of internet users who pay for their "basic" service as it is.
The open internet can be described very simply as follows:
1. If you are an ISP and you connect your pipes to a public network that is the Internet, you're a common carrier. 2. If you are an ISP and you don't connect to a public network and create and carry your own content in your own private network, then you're not a common carrier. 3. If you're a common carrier, you *can't* discriminate against any traffic, nor can you favor just some of it if paid more money.
Think of what you're saying and ask yourself if you could apply your "tiered" proposal to public roads, power transmission, sewage or water service. My short answer is *no*.
How about...we don't do any of this because it's a horrible idea, and would kill tens of thousands of IT/Web Development jobs (as if we don't already have a problem with outsourcing already)?
This would quite possibly be one of the most devastating catastrophes in our history of "freedom." And as for all of you saying "THIS IS GREAT!" and "GO GOOGLE GO!" how much is Google/Verizon/the FCC/Rothschild's paying you to post? I'm interested in a job...
Wireless is treated differently than wireline broadband access for a few reasons:
ReplyDeleteWhile there are practical commercial limitations, wireline BB access uses a controlled media that is only limited by the number of lines or fibers that are physically run. Wires and fiber optics are the backbone transport for all terminations to end points/users. As such, these need be open.
The most leveraged/critical connection is that to the end user. No other media connects the user to 'whenever, wherever connectivity' like wireless. And due to 4G and B4G technologies, the use of wireless opens up a huge frontier of basic and innovative access.
Wireless faces the real world problems of a limited amount of spectrum and ever-changing 'media'. The air above your heads and around you changes because of walls, trees, rain, terrain frequency, interference... all of which are not directly controlled as is the case with wired/fiber media. That dynamic, difficult environment makes it a necessity to do a lot of signal processing that changes instantaneously "as the wind blows" so to speak. And that raises the cost and also the inherent technical necessity to control the way signals are sent.
For all the free Internet advocates, you need to put on your thinking caps as Google management has done.. the conclusion may be some compromise with vested money/spectrum monopolists, but, nonetheless, is the correct line of thinking.
The devil is always in the details. Open Internet advocates should seek reasonable access for applications and content.. if Verizon or Google get access under particular terms, every other competitor or individual should have the same. Within Verizon or any other operator the cost and QoS should be equal/equivalent with all others. P2P torrent/donkey should be allowed access on equal terms as other bandwidth abusers that can detract from other users experience.
Hope Google aply those principles inside their own system and stop blocking user content(allegeing SPAM). SPAM must be set up for the user, each SPAM rule.
ReplyDeleteI've lost many important notification bacause of that. They shouldnt impede some content to get inside their e-mail system. If i don't like I simply mark as SPAM. As they say: "Users should choose what content, applications, or devices they use" (#1)
I want Net Neutrality on my Gmail inbox too.
You've sold out, Google. It's sad that some people are posting crap like "way to go Google!" Apparently, they didn't read all the non-language you put in there. I wish you'd stop this crap, realize you don't own the internet and get back to being the innovation you once were.
ReplyDeleteNo neutrality for the soon to be dominant form of Internet access? You're not in 'Do no Evil' land anymore!
ReplyDeleteWhat a load of cock-and-bull! If you read through the actual proposal and ignore the publicity bull**** in this blog post, its plain as day that Google is KILLING net neutrality with this deal, the exact *opposite* of their corporate statement "Do No Evil."
ReplyDeleteIf Google continues to push this proposal to end net neutrality, I will waste no time in ceasing all usage of their services. I will not support a company that would prefer to pad their corporate coffers than to protect the public and their right to a free and open internet.
Things looked good till point the sixth when it all fell apart. Badly.
ReplyDelete#6 proposes isn't an open internet or any kind of internet what it proposes is a collection of private networks belonging to cellular carriers which may or may not be somewhat compatible with the internet. I'll bet will not be.
Compuserve aka Compu$pend reborn!
So don't expect telco investment to improve their plant such as fibre to the house as a result.
I guess the deal Google gets is not getting their ads put anywhere but the top tier and other goodies on this network of Verizon's. What else Google isn't saying.
So Google didn't exactly sell out the open internet, they brought us a collection of private "internets" on TCP/IP instead on the public airways no less.
Nice try, Google. Pity no one buys it.
One question for Google. Do you believe in open anything any more? Open Internet, Open Source, open anything?
Or is the closed bed with Verizon too comfortable to go back to your open roots?
Shame on you, Google.
ReplyDeleteThat you have the chutzpah to delineate how you think the FCC should regulate you is bad enough, but the fact that you and Verizon are dividing the Internet up like Poland is reprehensible.
Whatever happened to "Do no evil"?
Very disappointing. I expect better of Google. What happened to the old Google that was trying to open up wireless?? Hopefully someone at Google will realize just how bad this whole idea is.
ReplyDeleteSo, essentially Google has changed its motto to "Don't be evil--unless you can get away with it." Talk about the foxes guarding the hen house. What a bad joke. Anyway, it was a nice internet while it lasted.
ReplyDeleteIf the Internet existed to serve some obvious goal, it would be trivial to determine whether prioritizing packets would help or hinder its achievement, but as far as I can tell, It does not exist to accomplish any obvious goal. The net neutrality debate is essentially the Internet's own existential conflict.
ReplyDeletePart of the supporting argument in favor of net neutrality says that prioritizing packets would not be wise because we cannot predict what the Internet will be used for in the future, and that those packet prioritization rules will inevitably end up in conflict with the goals of future internet users. (eg. The I. doesn't know what it want's to be when it grows up. boo hoo)
Ironically (is it?) the very act of prioritizing communications in any way, would set the I. on a one way path towards serving a particular purpose, settling the issue of whether it should have done so in the first place. (eg. The I. wants to be a good targeted advertising delivery system, nothing else.)
So what is at stake for the Internet is that same thing that is at stake when a conscious person has a mental breakdown over the purpose of their life.
This is a sad day. This is just bull crap mumbojumbo. Google is cashing in and net neutrality is out. Shame on what was once a respectable company.
ReplyDeleteClearly this is a situation in which Verizon and Google want to write the new rules of Net Neutrality to their own benefit. Clever legislative coercion...
ReplyDeleteYour stock price is screwed. Enjoy being the next Yahoo.
ReplyDeleteWe DON"T HAVE TO use you, we have Bing and Yahoo (that's coming from a Mac user).
Just remember everyone Google is a company. You don't have to use them. If no one uses them they will eventually go bankrupt.
ReplyDeleteI love you guys, honestly. i just pray that you will rethink this decision and issue a statement tomorrow explaining your actions without PR spin. Please just be the one good company and say that you're backing down from the deal; Verizon tricked you into it; and you see the future of the internet being completely open rather than the one your 'deal' portrays as stifling innovation and killing the public internet. No one wants a thousand iTunes-style ecosystems, but we want more interoperating HTML5, feature-rich internets that ISPs hate for using up bandwidth. Please realize that what is good for the goose, is good for the gander.
ReplyDeleteNo net neutrality for anything wireless or any new “premium services”. And no input from consumers on violations.
ReplyDeleteThis isn’t merely a bad proposal, this is a violation of google’s principle to “not be evil”.
Steve Jobs really was/is a visionary.
ReplyDeleteHe knew it when he said this,
This don’t be evil mantra: “It’s bullshit.”
Google remember this:
Each and every service that you provide can be and will be replaced at the click of a button.
Search:Bing
Email:Hotmail/Yahoo
Everything else: The Internet
Your ads are obnoxious and a pain in the arse.
You have reduced competition to a war between who gets more user eyeballs and ad revenues vs what is more innovative.
You suck Google.
And you know it.
This isn't net neutrality, and why the #$@$ are two multinational corporations dictating internet policy?
ReplyDeleteThis is a raw deal for peoples' privacy rights and an attempt to profit by diverting the unrestricted access to information. "Don't be evil" my ass.
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/cz5if/google_and_verizon_back_net_neutrality_with_joint/
this thread makes my brain hurt. half of you pitchfork wielding sensationalists didn't even read the parts about avoiding tiered charges, and the other half is just repeating the talking points from the website that linked them here. i am not paid by google/verizon to post here. almost everyone here is using the normal internet which is not to be affected. all this animosity over the futuristic wireless internet is even funnier. how many of you even know how complicated it is to provide that internet? do you really think we should be laying down rules on something that will not look the same every 2 years? don't most of you realize your just repeating what some news website told you to think? omgomgomg it doesn't say in the proposal that google doesn't intend to kill kittens!!!1!1!1 wtf!??!?11/!?/?!?! they are sooooOo000l evil!!.1/!
ReplyDeleteI expect this kind of monopolism from the big telcoms. Google bedding down with them to the detriment of the public at large is truly sad (and yes, let's say it again "just plain evil" in no uncertain terms).
ReplyDeleteNote the way they dance around the real issues in their joint statement. This is inexcusable. Let's hope it's reversible with the power of law behind it.
Get busy folks - it's damn near too late. A bunch of our own congressional representatives set the stage for this debacle awhile back. call 'em up. The FCC needs to step up too. The President and the Congress need to support the effort.
No one owns the internet (or did up until now). Accordingly, it's not our government's to give away in the first place. Let's get goin' folks. Now please.
Why do some people think this double talk is a good thing? This is terrible. A lot of it seems to be completely against what you're supposed to stand for, no matter how you try to spin it. Goodbye Google, and a continued goodbye to Verizon. Not that most other companies are any better, but at least they don't try to pretend they aren't selfish, greedy bastards. DO NO EVIL my rump.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to "Do no evil" google? Net neutrality? Jesus, this is a load of horse-crap.
ReplyDeleteI think it is a great compromise.
ReplyDeleteThe existing internet with cumbersome Net Neutrarity rules will become the public housing of the digital age ruled by outlaw torrents and Viagra pushers. Mean while those of us who can afford it can move to the new tiered private system. We can also discard whole bunch of old legacy from tcp/ip as well.
Hooray for return of commom sense.
that "lawful internet content" line is disconcerting. i'd like to know how that's defined.
ReplyDeletenot sure i'm following on #6, either. so, let's say t-mobile strikes up an agreement with microsoft/bing. it's fine if they limit or block google search access on the t-mobile network?
what's the point in drawing up net neutrality rules for america's internet if they don't apply to all types of internet access? sounds a bit hypocritical.
So, in your net neutrality proposal, you make net neutrality obsolete by not including it in wireless (which you and I both know is the future of the 'net) and by allowing tiered pay services that are "distinguished" from providers? Cute.
ReplyDeleteDo you expect the FCC to honestly monitor all these premium services, using taxpayer dollars? No, you don't. Which is why you're proposing they allow them. Because you're clearly fighting AGAINST NET NEUTRALITY.
Hopefully the FCC and Congress aren't as gullible and dumb as you're hoping they are. But I have my doubts. And who are you to be writing FCC proposals, anyway? This is outrageous. And sad. Your evil, Google, came in such a user-friendly package.
wireless, "alternative delivery like FIOS" ... you can't slice out the bottom tier of the OSI model and pretend it's not the internet anymore.
ReplyDeleteYou're going to create networking islands. Islands the cell carriers already enjoy and are terrified of losing as things go digital.
MEDIUM OF TRANSFER IS NOT IMPORTANT. The very inclusion of this distinction _invites_ companies to bypass it. It's either a private network, or it's public over internet space.
I was hoping for a simple, general tiering model... not a system that allows companies to simply exclude themselves form net neutrality once the segment they own is large enough to stand on it's own.
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." --George Adam Smith
ReplyDeleteFinally Google takes off its sheep clothing and becomes another company that everybody hates.
ReplyDeleteI've been on the Internet and its predecessor, the ARPANET, since 1986.
ReplyDeleteEver hear of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", Google?
Didn't the failure Google Wave (or Buzz) teach you anything? Try getting out of your ivory tower of Babel sometime and find out what non-engineers think before you open your mouths and jam your feet in them.
Or, why don't we keep it simple:
Go f**k yourselves.
What is a "differentiated online service"? The OSI stack instead of IP? Are such services expected to adhere to the end-to-end principle?
ReplyDeleteThe most disappointing part of this announcement is the statement that since the "mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly" that means vendors and carriers offering mobile services should be allowed to discriminate by altering internet protocol conformance to further their business interests by blocking, throttling, or filtering against unfavored (i.e., insufficiently profitable) applications, services, devices, content, or destinations. If I'm reading that incorrectly, please let me know what I misunderstood.
How is this not just another mobile carrier trying to use their leverage to try to offer a highly commercial WAP-style subset of the internet instead of building out bandwidth to meet customer demand? Why is Google going along with it?
Very disappointing and shameful!
shamefull to see 1st how many comments were deleted. Specially when I came here cus I wanted to see google wern't really into censorship.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that broadband providers could cut off places like /b and all the other sites filled with dirt appealed to me but then it carried on and I lost a lot of faith in google. this will be the beginning of the end.
This will only reach as far as the usa.
Your about to become the new china, but then maybe that's what they want? a bubble they can control. and under those regulations that's exactly what they will get.
Not different from wireline, wireless is. Rethink this, you must!
ReplyDeleteA compromise is when two parties after the same object agree to only get part of what they want and stop fighting for it...Who the hell is this compromising with?
ReplyDeleteI have been using google for many years; this may be the last if this continues to be the company line.
I'm inclined to adopt a "wait and see" stance here for exactly the reasons WiMax Pro discusses. I dealt with Comcast as a customer when they did cut off access to certain sites and slowed customers' internet to a crawl for downloads (note: not all downloads are illegal. Personally, I purchase - legally - probably close to a hundred gigabytes of data over the internet in a year's time), and I was paying for the top tier of access with them in terms of speed and bandwidth for just that reason as well as gaming.
ReplyDeleteWireless, however, is a whole different animal. You not only have computers on wireless networks (a/b/g/n), but also reading devices (either wi-fi or 3G), smartphones (3G and 4G), gaming consoles, and a host of other devices. Yes, the future is in wireless - no one is disagreeing with the assessment - but the technology is advancing rapidly and it seems to me to be somewhat unwise to attempt to fully regulate technology that is still advancing and that may not exist yet.
What follows applies only to United States citizens, with the understanding that the world wide web - or the internet - while it may have originated as a US military project, is not now limited to the United States.
I do have some concern with allowing the FCC to regulate anything: the First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees freedom of speech in the following manner: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." We have interpreted this to mean (I believe, correctly) that the Government, or any of its agencies may not interfere in our right as citizens to freely express ourselves (provided we do not do so in a manner that is threatening - for instance, an individual who makes a threat against the life of another in a public venue should, rightfully in my opinion, be questioned to determine whether or not they intend to actually carry out that threat). In the past decade especially, the Federal Government under the past two Presidential Administrations (both Presidents Bush and Obama), has been particularly zealous in attempting to limit civil liberties in our country. As a medically retired disabled veteran, I understand fully what it is to live without the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights (the military gives up most of their 1st-10th Amendment rights for the duration of their term of service), but I did so voluntarily as a soldier in service to my nation. To ask or demand that ordinary citizens do the same in the name of "regulation" or "security" nullifies the basis of the law of the land. If the Federal Government were capable of sound regulation and oversight, I suspect our economy wouldn't be in the mess it is currently in.
I'm seriously considering dumping all of my Google products over this.
ReplyDeleteBandwidth scarcity is just a red herring that has ALWAYS been used to justify the shift away from net neutrality. Don't believe me? Bandwidth scarcity is EXACTLY what Comcast used to justify its P2P filtering.
Google is just trying to cash in on their near-monopoly status by locking people into an "AOL-style walled garden," no more, no less.
William Gibson is becoming more prophetic every moment and these issues frame perfectly the fact that large transnationals are subsuming the function of the government. It's both spooky and comical at the same time that a telephone company and a . . a... (what, exactly to call Google? - 'anti-evilness organization'?) can say with a straight face things like "[our] proposal spells out the FCC’s role and authority". In the old days, the Congress and administrative agencies "(spelled) out" regulatory roles for agencies such as the FCC. Get used to it. This sort of thing has been going on for some time (private enterprise ordering government around by virtue of the billions of dollars they control which leash and bridle the elected class) and perhaps the 'transparency' which our new Big Brethren are mandating here (in order to straighten out the FCC) is finally becoming a reality in corporate behavior as well. This sort of tripe sounds eerily like a third world government engaging in NewSpeak – all the more monstrous for the smooth, calming tones in which it is rendered.
ReplyDeleteNice google. Well we all knew they were going to be evil sometime. It was just a question of when, not if.
ReplyDeleteGoogle thank you, first time when you really make your dont be evil thinging off.
ReplyDeletenobody can really think that because wireless cell networks are new thing on the market is the reasson why bigmoney companies like telecompanies can regulate anything.
damn 4g come and it is lots better transparency, it can handle lots better that balance where 3g dosnt like usage peaks and so on.
if google make thiskind big announce and point of view, then companies dosnt want improve technology anymore because they see that it isnt good business anymore.
so thank you google to be evil.
What a lousy title for a document describing how the internet is gonna shut down and be exclusive only to big corporations. Shame on Google, shame on the premise that it started from academia and to promote freedom of information. Google must have learned from China and adopted the Chinese governments values for their own.
ReplyDelete2 words....Other Countries? Other countries do not fall under the FCC regulations, so how do you enforce this... I would think with bigger problems like illegal immigrants, that this should be the last thing any company should worry about...charge more for content... what you gonna do, when people can't pay your advertisers cost, and your model completely crumbles?
ReplyDeleteJust a tought....
This is the main interstates inter-global highways- make it not free, will block the and plug and limit the transportation which is also a national security issue for the US.
ReplyDeleteUS interest world wide globally is for free speech, info for all, etc.
if companies can block content, decides on it, why not governments allowed to.
Ie. google china fight is just for nothing.
dont do evil Goog!
Ill just say to Google that i love- Beware - not to make mistakes that will make you out of favor - where is still a lot of your charm come from.
like the mistakes you make in BUzz, orkut, and wave. this might be one big one - you'll become 2nd Microsoft- that would cost you 20% of future market share. Is it worth it?
to be like Microsoft that ppl don't want to touch their products not rightfully many times but still.
This is the main interstates inter-global highways- make it not free, will block the and plug and limit the transportation which is also a national security issue for the US.
ReplyDeleteUS interest world wide globally is for free speech, info for all, etc.
if companies can block content, decides on it, why not governments allowed to.
Ie. google china fight is just for nothing.
dont do evil Goog!
Ill just say to Google that i love- Beware - not to make mistakes that will make you out of favor - where is still a lot of your charm come from.
like the mistakes you make in BUzz, orkut, and wave. this might be one big one - you'll become 2nd Microsoft- that would cost you 20% of future market share. Is it worth it?
to be like Microsoft that ppl don't want to touch their products not rightfully many times but still.
Way to go evil, Google. It took long enought, but you went out with a bang. Congrats.
ReplyDeleteThe precedent you are setting by separating the wireless and wired internet is dangerous. The wireless industry has the tools at its disposal to ensure the quality of its network without throttling traffic. Prioritizing certain content undermines the whole point of the agreement, at a time when the wireless web is coming into its own. You are undermining the web. I have been a staunch Google supporter, but that support is about to end, unless you strengthen or clarify this new policy shift.
ReplyDeleteGood thing that they realized there is more profit in an open Internet than there is if someone tries to control parts of it. Lucky that freedom goes hand in hand with success here. More institutions should draw inspiration from this.
ReplyDeleteGoogle is predatory. Google is unprincipled. Google is amoral. Google is just another Microsoft.
ReplyDeleteGo to Hell Google.
Google and Verizon promise net neutrality on the one hand, but propose to leave the door open for differentiated services in the future. This would allow Verizon, for example, to jack up the price of the "neutral net" to the point where the corporate-controlled net is the only practical choice.
ReplyDeleteWe cannot leave the future of the Internet to selfish organizations like Google and Verizon. The Internet is a public domain and must be operated for the good of all people.
By opening a second set of lines you are stopping innovation. Instead of merging everything together you'll get a second web for the big stuff. But how to connect it with the www?
ReplyDeleteTruth is: You don't want it to be connected. Because with a new network you can charge for it way more than today.
It seems, Google is not interested in innovation anymore. Just take a look at Wave. An extremely innovative product, terribly explained. Instead believing in what you created, you killed it.
I have the feeling, Eric Schmidt is the next Steve Ballmer: A big, fat old cat just loosing it.
Could we get a fresh CEO, please?
I work on the mobile space, so I can understand some of the concerns of wireless providers to have their networks saturated by a few heavy users. However, the compromise as currently stated here, I think, is wrong.
ReplyDeleteRather than exempt wireless traffic from neutrality rules, I would instead suggest a (lets say) 5 years moratorium on the application of neutrality rules to the wireless space.
At that point, the FCC would reassess the technological state of the wireless market and determine whether neutrality rules are achievable and should start to apply, or the moratorium continue for another limited period of time.
With the rapid improvements in wireless technology, we need to keep corporations on target to deploy net neutrality as soon as possible. At the same time we do not want current users to experience bad service just because currently available wireless frequencies are saturated by heavy traffic.
... wireline (inventing a new term, or using obscure terminology to obfuscate is a time-honored tradition among legislation writers).
ReplyDeleteWith this in place "wireline" service will fade away and eventually be replaced by the vendor/commercially regulated Winternet where free speech and open content is frozen out!
Shame on Google! You are being a traitor to your own principles and the open Internet on which you have thrived. A sign you have gotten too big for your britches. Time to rein you in! Use non-Google while you still can!
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely the most disturbing blog post ever written. This should be considered the first domino to fall setting up government (via lobbyists and the monsters that pay them) to controlling what made all these people richer than kings.
ReplyDeleteshame on all involved with this.
This is not "awesome". To my semi-literate friends, this means that Verizon, AT&T and other providers will use the RF Spectrum, leased to them by the FCC, like the cbale networks. If you want to put your show online, you will be relagated to public access channels, with very low visibility. When wired networks are no longer profitable, they have huge costs of maintaince, they will be left to rot and die, along with the idea of net neutrality.
ReplyDeletewireless is not a new or emerging changing market. it has been held back by telecommunication companies because of their greed.
ReplyDeletethere is no reason why we cannot come up with a set of rules that covers wired, wireless, and any new wireless technology that will come up. how about making it far reaching so we don't have to cover it again.
and to all of you who say it is socialist crap well if the capitalist crap would be honest and above board we would not have to interfere,
this country is so screwed. nothing will get done because all the lobbyist and corporations will want a law to fit their greed model.
here is a thought. how about we come up with a law that doesn't have big business in the forefront and actually is for the people. well I can dream can't I.
This is like a nightmare out of a Roland Emmerich movie.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite companies (Google) is giving the government more power in exchange for financial gain. Well, I suppose after all they are a corporation seeking only one thing, "the almighty dollar." I cant blame them for wanting to grow economically, but they seem to want the dollar more than they want to promote this so called "net neutrality" which really if you think about it is sort of scary.
Speaking radically but rationally I think if it is widely accepted within our government we may see our internet access being exclusively controlled by the government. Honestly, doesn't our government already have enough control? I really feel as though a global medium should have little enforcements. I mean for goodness sakes look at China. Google had to pull out of China.
By this pact, the wireless Internet will have absolutely no net neutrality requirements.
ReplyDeleteJoke?
"Don't be evil!" Ha.
Google, I expected betrayal from Verizon but not from you. You broke my heart and now I don't know who to trust.
ReplyDeleteSo the real question is... when do we all boycott Google and Verizon to let them know how we feel in the only way they will listen?
Great, more government regulation. The internet should be completely free and open. This proposal is a step in the wrong direction. Google and Verizon should just stick to providing content, not deciding policies.
ReplyDeleteWay to keep the internet "open" google. I guess this is good news for your android market place, right? You should change your slogan google.
ReplyDeleteGoogle is merely trying to persuade you to back this non-existent fairy tale of "net neutrality" so they don't have to pay their fair share (i.e., much more than they are currently paying) for clogging up the internet with immense volumes of traffic.
ReplyDeleteDon't be fooled. Their motives are disingenuous, selfish, and ultimately defeating for the average person using the internet since there will be little to no motivation for ISP's and Tier 1 carriers to improve infrastructure to cope with ever increasing loads if they can't recoup their investment on it by charging higher prices. And what's fair? Having everyone pay the same amount regardless of how much you use, or pay according to how much you use? I think the answer to any rational person is obvious.
screw you google. screw you
ReplyDeletescrew you google. screw you
ReplyDeleteTons of doom here guys, a little too much for my liking. Every caveat I see pointed out here is addressed in the exact same paragraph as the offending quotes.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's not perfect, but it suits what the industry needs. At least the US has a company rooting for them, we're SOL here in Canada when it comes to Net Neutrality.
Not applying net neutrality to wireless services?! Come on, Google, step up! Don't muck us over.
ReplyDeleteWhat needs to be kept in mind is that this is a framework to be sent to the FCC, it doesn't say they can't make changes to it....
ReplyDeleteWhat we need to keep in mind is that this is a proposal to be sent to the FCC, it doesn't say that the FCC can't make alterations and close some of the loopholes....
ReplyDeleteI'm a longtime Google and Verizon customer, I use gmail and calendar, carry an Android phone from Verizon, and even use google apps for a non-profit i administer. i'm NOT convinced by this at all.
ReplyDeleteFirst, "Open Internet Coalition" is a slimy name for an anti-neutrality corporate shell. Just be honest and say "Hey, we want to lock in our market position over the next 20 years, raise the costs of market entry, and make tons of money."
Second, until my user agreement contract says "we [Google/Verizon] guarantee access to all content at speeds up to 2mbs, regardless of perspective or controversy," there's no guarantee against censorship.
Finally, you guys out in Mountainview have been led astray by your policy folks in DC. It takes what, 2-3 years for them to convince you that you should be dependent on favorable government regulation to make a profit, not the power of your ideas and customer satisfaction?!?!?
This is BS. You sold us out. You are now officially doing evil.
ReplyDeleteWiMAX Pro, reread the agreement.
ReplyDeleteYou say, "Wireless faces the real world problems of a limited amount of spectrum and ever-changing 'media'."
But those problems are entirely encompassed by the "technical necessity" clause of the pact.
The pact then includes a completely separate, redundant clause: wireless is exempt from net neutrality requirements, not just when technically necessary, but ALTOGETHER.
What a joke.
This sounds like like BP regulating off shore drilling.
ReplyDeleteMy machine will send IP packets and nobody has any business what's in it. The postal services has no right to read my mail or the the phone company to listen to my conversations.
The competiotion should take care of this.
This is a sad day. Google has always put forth a quirky, exhuberant, and overall altruistic vibe. There was just something different about this company and it restored a lot of hope and faith, that there could be success derived from a simple philosophy of "Do No Evil". Ah how power corrupts.. Verizon has long been comprised of blood sucking leaches, but now Google's has fallen too.. Enjoy your billions boys.. You held stewardship of responsible cultural and sociological evolution in your hands and you compromised your founding principles.
ReplyDeleteAllowing a corporate entity to control the flow of information would be considered "evil", thus violating one of Google's guiding principles. This proposal is disturbing on numerous levels and I hope the public educates themselves on it.
ReplyDeleteRemember when what was good for the web was good for Google? Well apparently we can have that web and Google, Verizon and other Bigs can have their own.
ReplyDeleteDude, abide: Don't be evil.
This is very troubling. Will be ending my gmail account and permanently switching to a different search. Will also move my organization off google apps. So much for not being evil.
ReplyDeleteToday is the day when I quit using google as a search engine. Hopefully I'll find a substitute for Gmail soon. Unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteAll data are equal, but some are more equal than others.
ReplyDeleteGoogle is indeed no different from any other company. Shame.
I expected more out of Google (not out of Verizon though). I love my Gmail, GoogleDocs, GoogleMaps, and my Droid but I am done with anything Google.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is insane. We don't need the Internet to change. It must stay public, equal and open just as it already IS. If you want to create your own private network, do so by all means, but don't presume to take over "the Internet" and tell us it is for our benefit. Do no evil.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteeveryone who cares about real net neutrality, not this bogus plan hatched by corporate megalodons should sign these petitions:
ReplyDeletehttp://act.boldprogressives.org/cms/sign/google_evil/?source=huff1
http://savetheinternet.com/fcc-comments
https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=356
Look, we all realize it costs something to bring us Wireless Internet. But we PAY THROUGH THE NOSE ALREADY! This isn't something they give us for free, but when I think I am connecting to the "Internet", I expect to be able to connect to the free and open INTERNET, not some service managed version that is controlled by corporate interests. It will become quickly impossible to regulate, and the FCC is having its *alls handed to it by Google and Verizon in this contract. Who are they to DICTATE to our government what they can do? What are we becoming as a nation if we allow companies to manage us?
ReplyDeleteGoogle,
ReplyDeleteI backed you in every decision even when it became shady at times. But now?
No ones listening to the consumer. Did anyone up and say hey Google, Verizon we want this? Last time I checked it was no.
Stop trying to make money guys and bring our network up to speed with other countries first before trying to sell me this. If stuff like this goes through, I swear I'm moving to Japan. Oh yea, It's open network there and 100 times better.
How about you send me an email google and we can talk.
The internet is currently, and should remain, public. This is an essential tool in the modern world for the communication of free speech. Regulation would clearly threaten this outlet for speech and is unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteGetting ready to completely bail on all Google products.
ReplyDeleteThing long-term, Google. Your company has not stood the test of time, and you can be crushed by your former supporters if you continue to move in this direction.
It seems that google and verizon are getting cocky. Technically, the FCC does NOT need to consult with anyone before they enact policies on communications. It is their JOB, it is why the FCC was created, so why are all the companies that the FCC is supposed to be ruling over running the show. it is like letting BP and Exxon decide evironmentally friendly forms of off-shore drilling. This "compromise" is just a load of B.S. I did not expect better from verizon, but I really did hope for better from google. It seems they are selling out down the drain to try and monopolize themselves just the way microsoft did years ago.
ReplyDeleteWhy is everyone so stressed out about "differentiated online services". Your digital cable and your VoIP bundle are examples. I can use the VoIP offered by my ISP or pay for a service... This language is put in there to acknowledge and encourage new services like this over the network while making sure there is not a loophole in doing it. Without defining it in someway do you really think the coming rush of digital TV/Internet content wouldn't have tiered services built in? Do you realize how easy it would be for Cable provider X to bundle a package with Console game maker Y to provide a better latency network product with "enhanced VoIP and Video". Under this proposal the product "must be distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules." Without this they could degrade those services at the packet level and squeeze 3rd party providers out of the innovation space desired by all.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to Google's "Don't be evil" motto?
ReplyDeleteGoogle and Verizon have decided what they want the internet to be, and want their wishes made into law so they can best capitalize on something they have no legal right to: Control of the Internet.
We have seen what happens when we trust corporate giants to decide what's best for the marketplace- i.e. The American People- and to self-regulate. It was all just peachy- Right, AT&T, AIG, Lehman Brothers, GM, etc, etc? This is nothing more than a ploy to take over the wireless market, and, if successful, will lead to a desire to take over the wired market as well.
If these two corporations have their way, small business like mine could very well see themselves having to pay a fee so that their websites are found via searches on wireless devices, and it could pave the way to even higher internet access rates when extremely popular sites decide to charge Google, Verizon, and other carriers that pick and choose what can and can't be accessed a fee to allow access to them. Before you know it, the internet will become as mired down as cable and satellite TV, and will be just as expensive.
For example, Google and Verizon could tell Amazon and eBay to pay up if they want it so they can be accessed via their wireless network. But, on the flip side, should they decline to acquiesce to this demand, people may decide they would be better off going with a wireless carrier who does offer them easy access to their favorite sites, or who does pay these sites' fees to give network users access to their web pages. It's a no-win situation, but only for the consumer.
Cyberspace should not be owned by these or any other companies for the sake of not only freedom of speech and expression, but for the sake of the free exchange of ideas. Google balked at China for it's actions against them last year, yet they're attempting to do much the same with the mere introduction of this "plan".
This is an evil, underhanded plan, and I urge all of you to not only boycott Google in terms of buying (and clicking on) advertising, but to steer clear of Verizon as well. Also, let your Congressmen and President Obama know just what you think of this.
Don't let the corporate giants decide what your internet is going to be! Speak up now!!!
I read this and I wonder why Google is selling out both long term collaborators and principles. Why does the of a delivery mechanism determine the level of neutrality? This seems to be a stance predicated on some short term business gain, be it a future alliance with Verizon to further promote Android or some other undisclosed venture. Whatever Google's reasons, they are short sighted and not in line with the interests of consumers.
ReplyDeleteA tiered internet for medical purposes--OK I could be convinced. For Youtube vs. Hulu vs. Netflix on different devices/networks? There is far less societal utility when you move that structure into the entertainment realm.
Care to respond to this article?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-aaron/google-verizon-pact-it-ge_b_676194.html
What happened to Google's "Don't be evil" motto?
ReplyDeleteGoogle and Verizon have decided what they want the internet to be, and want their wishes made into law so they can best capitalize on something they have no legal right to: Control of the Internet.
We have seen what happens when we trust corporate giants to decide what's best for the marketplace- i.e. The American People- and to self-regulate. It was all just peachy- Right, AT&T, AIG, Lehman Brothers, GM, etc, etc? This is nothing more than a ploy to take over the wireless market, and, if successful, will lead to a desire to take over the wired market as well.
If these two corporations have their way, small business like mine could very well see themselves having to pay a fee so that their websites are found via searches on wireless devices, and it could pave the way to even higher internet access rates when extremely popular sites decide to charge Google, Verizon, and other carriers that pick and choose what can and can't be accessed a fee to allow access to them. Before you know it, the internet will become as mired down as cable and satellite TV, and will be just as expensive.
For example, Google and Verizon could tell Amazon and eBay to pay up if they want it so they can be accessed via their wireless network. But, on the flip side, should they decline to acquiesce to this demand, people may decide they would be better off going with a wireless carrier who does offer them easy access to their favorite sites, or who does pay these sites' fees to give network users access to their web pages. It's a no-win situation, but only for the consumer.
Cyberspace should not be owned by these or any other companies for the sake of not only freedom of speech and expression, but for the sake of the free exchange of ideas. Google balked at China for it's actions against them last year, yet they're attempting to do much the same with the mere introduction of this "plan".
This is an evil, underhanded plan, and I urge all of you to not only boycott Google in terms of buying (and clicking on) advertising, but to steer clear of Verizon as well. Also, let your Congressmen and President Obama know just what you think of this.
Don't let the corporate giants decide what your internet is going to be! Speak up now!!!
What happened to Google's "Don't be evil" motto?
ReplyDeleteGoogle and Verizon have decided what they want the internet to be, and want their wishes made into law so they can best capitalize on something they have no legal right to: Control of the Internet.
We have seen what happens when we trust corporate giants to decide what's best for the marketplace- i.e. The American People- and to self-regulate. It was all just peachy- Right, AT&T, AIG, Lehman Brothers, GM, etc, etc? This is nothing more than a ploy to take over the wireless market, and, if successful, will lead to a desire to take over the wired market as well.
If these two corporations have their way, small business like mine could very well see themselves having to pay a fee so that their websites are found via searches on wireless devices, and it could pave the way to even higher internet access rates when extremely popular sites decide to charge Google, Verizon, and other carriers that pick and choose what can and can't be accessed a fee to allow access to them. Before you know it, the internet will become as mired down as cable and satellite TV, and will be just as expensive.
If these two corporations have their way, small business like mine could very well see themselves having to pay a fee so that their websites are found via searches on wireless devices, and it could pave the way to even higher internet access rates when extremely popular sites decide to charge Google, Verizon, and other carriers that pick and choose what can and can't be accessed a fee to allow access to them. Before you know it, the internet will become as mired down as cable and satellite TV, and will be just as expensive.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Google and Verizon could tell Amazon and eBay to pay up if they want it so they can be accessed via their wireless network. But, on the flip side, should they decline to acquiesce to this demand, people may decide they would be better off going with a wireless carrier who does offer them easy access to their favorite sites, or who does pay these sites' fees to give network users access to their web pages. It's a no-win situation, but only for the consumer.
Cyberspace should not be owned by these or any other companies for the sake of not only freedom of speech and expression, but for the sake of the free exchange of ideas. Google balked at China for it's actions against them last year, yet they're attempting to do much the same with the mere introduction of this "plan".
This is an evil, underhanded plan, and I urge all of you to not only boycott Google in terms of buying (and clicking on) advertising, but to steer clear of Verizon as well. Also, let your Congressmen and President Obama know just what you think of this.
Don't let the corporate giants decide what your internet is going to be! Speak up now!!!
Basically, this is what happened...
ReplyDeleteNet Neutrality is the governing principle of a truly free and open internet.
Google wanted Net Neutrality. They like free and open things, for whatever reason.
Verizon wanted to be able to squeeze extra money out of wireless communications. They didn't care much about wired.
Now, I can't say who reached out to who, but I imagine that Google, desperate to save Net Neutrality in some form, reached out to Verizon. Whom, IIRC was actually 'enemies' with Google at first. Google said, "You can do whatever you want with your wireless, but at least help us support Net Neutrality on wired broadband. Verizon obliged, seeing Google as a good partner. And this (see joint filing) is the result.
Anyone that say Google is violating their principles is sorely missing the sacrifice they made for *some* Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality was going to die quietly without this, so I'm thankful for it.
Oh and possomcrast, I imagine you want to be pissed of by totalitarian government policy or something. Net Neutrality isn't what you should be mad about. Look up 'ACTA'. That's what you, and everyone else should be pissed about, because it's a complete assualt on American freedom.
I am totally disappointed in Google's stance on this issue, given that the company's foundation was built upon the idea of an open and free internet. With the evolution of wireless internet, Google and it's partners are trying to stake a claim on what should be a momentous transition in American life and communication for their own profits and stifle creative, and possibly competitive, challenges to their superiority. It is a greedy and cowardly ploy. And I'm tired of the argument that wireless costs more because of signal processing, infrastructure, etc. We pay exorbitant fees to wireless providers for what is, in many cases, substandard service. The US lags behind European countries in both innovative mobile devices and bandwidth of service; lets not completely lose the plot on such a fundamental issue as net neutrality.
ReplyDeleteMy view on the Google/Verizon proposal:
ReplyDeletehttp://ratherthanworking.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-pipe-still-pipe.html
One of the slickest cons I’ve ever seen; far superior to Madoff’s Ponzi scheme and one that will cost us all far more than the billions Madoff took in his scheme.
ReplyDeleteHow could NET NEUTRALITY be bad? Net Neutrality itself isn’t BAD, in fact it’s a great idea. The problem herein lies in the wording used by Google & Verizon, specifically 1 single word. A word which will fundamentally change the effective power of this proposal and that is the word LEGAL.
Because the definition of LEGAL is open to interpretation by the government it is in effect the same thing as saying “whatever the government approves of” which in short means censorship.
How can prohibiting something that is NOT LEGEAL be bad even if it is the government that makes the determination of what is legal and what is not?
It is not the government alone that makes the determination of legal but the government under the heavy influence of lobbyist which represent every form of special interest there is other than the general public. In short it will be the influence of every entity except the general public that will steer the government to determine what is legal and what is not. If you think this is crazy or conspiracy talk then simply take a look at the GMO or Genetically Modified Organisms lobby and how they have influenced the determination of what is legal to say about not only their food but the food by companies that have nothing to do with GMO. It is illegal, yes that’s right, it is illegal for a package of food that DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY GMO to say that it is GMO free or that it is made without the use of GMOs. Look it up for yourself since I’m sure many will not believe this.
If the food industry can convince these congressmen to make it ILLEGAL for accompany to say their food has no GMO then is it really that hard to believe that the entertainment industry will convince them to ban all media content not controlled thru the studios even if it is content not owned by the studios? While this could be left open to debate as to whether this is acceptable, after all property rights should be supported thru the law, how about the question of content which is not copyrighted but is offensive in some way to corporation, government agency or non-government organization like CARE or the ACLU?
Any entity that has any level of influence over our politicians which seems to be everyone but the general public (everyone but those who actually elect these politicians and whom these politicians are supposed to represent) WILL BE ABLE to change the definition of legal and make it ILLEGAL for certain speech to be available, in any from, over the internet, in effect squashing free speech and shutting down any public resistance or outcry to anything by a government agency or corporation or NGO. It WILL happen if the proposed Google-Verizon proposal is made law.
I thought that the bad old days of AOL, and Compuserve were things of the past!
ReplyDeleteFrom You've got mail to Youtube and back again.
I thought that the bad old days of AOL, and Compuserve were things of the past!
ReplyDeleteFrom You've got mail to Youtube and back again.
Very disappointed. I would expect something like this from the weasels at Verizon, but Google has typically been better than this. This is sad to see, since Google has been one of the only consistent powerful supporters of network neutrality, and if they're no longer interested in it (as this post clearly demonstrates), then there isn't much standing between Verizon, Comcast, and Cox and the "Value-Added Premium Plus-net, now with Twitter access!"
ReplyDeleteSo basically, you want net neutrality except for new, premium services, which are sorta fuzzy right now 'cause they don't exist yet but you're creating a loophole in which they'll appear. Oh, and except for wireless, which you recognize is going to be more important than broadband (which is why you keep saying "broadband" over and over again to distract us).
ReplyDeleteGoogle, "Don't be evil" didn't protect us from you. It inoculated you against stupid ideas designed to make you into the next Microsoft -- the last company to make a mad grab for market share at the expense of ethics. Using force to lock down the competition only makes sense once you've become that kind of evil. And it only works until the next big thing comes along and renders your market irrelevant.
Not letting us comment on this using anything but Google / Blogger accounts is just rubbing it in.
One of the slickest cons I’ve ever seen; far superior to Madoff’s Ponzi scheme and one that will cost us all far more than the billions Madoff took in his scheme.
ReplyDeleteHow could NET NEUTRALITY be bad? Net Neutrality itself isn’t BAD, in fact it’s a great idea. The problem herein lies in the wording used by Google & Verizon, specifically 1 single word. A word which will fundamentally change the effective power of this proposal and that is the word LEGAL.
Because the definition of LEGAL is open to interpretation by the government it is in effect the same thing as saying “whatever the government approves of” which in short means censorship.
How can prohibiting something that is NOT LEGEAL be bad even if it is the government that makes the determination of what is legal and what is not?
It is not the government alone that makes the determination of legal but the government under the heavy influence of lobbyist which represent every form of special interest there is other than the general public. In short it will be the influence of every entity except the general public that will steer the government to determine what is legal and what is not.
If you think this is crazy or conspiracy talk then simply take a look at the issue of GMO Labeling; the labeling of food based on the fact it is GMO free, GMO or Genetically Modified Organism based foods are believed by some to be unhealthy. Regardless of what you believe on this issue the fact remains that some food has GMO and some does not and just as with other questionable additives or treatments of food the consumer has the right to know if the food is GMO based.
Currently the government (under its food agencies and regulators) with the heavy push of food giant Monsanto is pushing for a law that will make it ILLEGAL for a food product that does NOT contain any GMO to indicate as such on its label. That’s right, the law being pushed isn’t so as to prevent companies like Monsanto from being required to say their food has GMO but to prevent companies who do not use GMO to say so on the packaging labels of their food products. Not only is this nuts but it’s an absolute waste of our governments time & resources.
If the Federal Government is willing to push for a law over something like this do you really think they won’t use the ability to interpret LEGAL to disallow websites and or certain comments & speech that they do not like or that some giant corporation like Monsanto does not like because it speaks in opposition to something the corporations is pushing?
The Federal & Local Governments have for a few years now been using ‘Free Speech Zones’, an unconstitutional act by definition of the 1st amendment, in large cities to restrict citizens right to protest by limiting the place and times they may protest in effect preventing the protest. Do you really think they’ll hesitate to do the same with the internet once they have this proposal in place?
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"..
ReplyDeleteEither 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..
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.
ReplyDeleteAnd 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.
When two large corporations get together, it's always to make more money. That is the point of corporations.
ReplyDeleteWhen two large corporations get together to announce their great joint step for freedom, understand that hidden between the lines is going to be something that takes away freedoms. Otherwise why make a big fuss about it?
If it were as simple as doing the right thing, there would be no need for the dancing girls. In this case, the keywords that say so much are 'differentiated online services'.
In order to violate net neutrality, Google and Verizon are redefining what "the Internet" means. Shady, sad, and totally evil.
What happened to Google buying the white space frequency to create "wifi on steroids?" Wouldn't that essentially be neutral mobile broadband? Wouldn't that put Verizon out of business? Yes, yes it would!
ReplyDeleteAbandoning that initiative to partner (aka make money) with telecos is evil! DO NO EVIL!!!!
I will be trying my best to boycott google until such time as it returns to it's stated mission of;"Do no evil"
ReplyDeleteI will change my homepage from the bare google search page, which I have used since 1999.
I can live with slower speeds, not higher charges and tiered services.
I expect this from Verizon, Comcast and the other greedy capitalist pigs, but I thought you were different.
No. This is absolute, well, I don't know any other way to put it other than this: bullshit. I hope this gets shot down with no hesitation. How about real, true net neutrality? Don't be evil? I think you're forgetting about that. This is a total let down.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens when these "alternative services" begin to take the place of the free internet? I've blogged about that possibility here: http://www.creditedresponse.com/2010/08/thousands-of-internets-google-and.html
ReplyDeleteP.S. I just sold every GOOG share that I had (175 shares). I don't have any faith left in this company.
ReplyDeleteIf Sergey Brin and Larry Page have any balls, they would fire Eric Schmidt now before he does to the Google brand what John Sculley did to Apple's.
ReplyDeleteYou do understand the concept that the customer makes your business, right?
ReplyDeleteYour colorful logo is turning to mud - this is not good.
Not good, not good, shame on you!
The wireless data I pay for today is way too expensive: $160 a month for two smartphones. Most of that cost goes towards voice which uses the least bandwidth. This proposal will guarantee that giant wireless companies can continue to charge ridiculous amounts of money for "special" data. 20 cents for SMS? Yikes!
ReplyDeleteGoogle, why are you doing this to us? Did we not love you enough? I thought you were going to cherish the internet. I thought we were going to grow old together. I thought you stood for net neutrality. Google, I hate you.
ReplyDeleteThis plan is certainly evil, and I will do what I can to oppose it.
ReplyDelete@ Visalian: You bring up VoIP as an example of the sort of service that would be encouraged/engendered over the open internet under this agreement, but I think your example tends to cut against your argument.
ReplyDeleteAs things currently stand, ISPs do indeed offer their own VoIP services, but you can also buy VoIP from a third-party provider, delivered to you over the open internet, because the QoS over the open internet is good enough to provide such service.
What keeps an ISP from degrading the QoS on its network to a point at which VoIP services won't work reliably? I think it is just the fact that people are still a little unsure about the whole net neutrality thing, so most big operators are probably scared to do something so blatantly anti-competitive. If Comcast all of a sudden had a network so crappy that Vonage couldn't run reliably on it, but yet it still continued to offer Comcast DV with good QoS, it's a pretty safe bet that someone at the FCC would more or less be forced to take notice.
But under the proposal, with 'differentiated services' clearly and explicitly cut out of the mix, how long do you think the ISPs would feel compelled to restrain themselves?
Google what you're doing is wrong! Why not listen to the public outcry? Ohhhh because you care much more about Trillions of dollars than doing the right thing. There really is no one, no company that can't be bought. Forget Android and Google, iPhone and Bing!
ReplyDeleteDear Google. This is evil. Please don't do it.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to net neutrality? What happened to making money without being evil? What happened to democracy on the Internet?
ReplyDeleteIt's time to actually strive at being better than great. Google should stoop to acting just like any lame business out to make a buck.
Good luck, try to control what you can while you can. If you upset the market you will go the same way as the newspapers and other businesses you replaced. I hope this is truly an approach worthy of the "Do no evil" motto Google supposedly has, but we have been lied to so many times it is hard to believe what we see. I will say that if this does not promote openness and freedom, the consumers will happily leave you and you will be replaced.
ReplyDeleteThis is a smash and grab. This proposal opens the door to making the "Information Superhighway" into a toll road that only a select few can afford. Shame on you google . . .
ReplyDeleteI too have been a longtime google user, as well as a word of mouth evangelist for google's products. however, with this new joint Verizon measure, I don't believe I'd be able to support you.
ReplyDeletethe issue with neutrality is that it is all or nothing. having two tiers of service is not neutral. promising neutrality on the dying wireless networks, while capitalizing on the wireless ones, is not neutral.
in this matter, you are either for neutrality, or against it. my continued support, as well as the continued support of a large number of internet users hinges on your decision.
please, don't be evil.
I think you guys (at Google) should read this and think about it
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/why-google-became-a-carrier-humping-net-neutrality-surrender-monkey/all/1
GOOGLE YOU ARE GOING DOWNHILL.
ReplyDeleteWe do not need regulations on internet. service providers have no right telling the American People what we can see, watch, do on the internet.
I must be in the wrong country...I wasn't aware I moved to Socialist China.
http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html
I agree with Piratekingdan,
ReplyDeleteI have been a huge supporter of google for a long time. Your policy of openness has lead you to create some of the best software available including the Android os. Heck, without net neutrality your company would never have had a chance to grow into what it is today. You have made so much progress over the years and have become an industry powerhouse based off of your image as a good company that is only interested in innovation and free thinking. It is a shame to see you throw this all away for some money. You may not think it will happen but if you continue on this path google will be nothing in a few years and where will all your money be then? You still have a chance to right this wrong and restore my faith in my favorite company.
Good proposal! Just so long as the wireless exception gets closed up soon. Otherwise everything else would be a huge improvement over what we currently have in place.
ReplyDeleteWow. Nothing has made my question my support of Google as much as this shameless bit of hypocrisy.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Google should change their mission statement from "Don't be evil" to "Don't be afraid to reverse faux-principled opinions and screw consumers so long as we are in position to take advantage of it financially".
This is a disgrace.
This is awful and effectively kills the established principal of net neutrality.
ReplyDelete1) You surrender immediately by calling the current norm and bed rock of the net neutrality reasoning a "thorny issue". It's not thorny when it's the standard, it's under attack or more politely "being challenged".
2) What the heck does "recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly" mean?
a) The principal of net neutrality is in place because (as you accurately put it in 2007) the nation's airwaves "are a unique and valuable public resource that belong to all Americans." How has this fact changed?
b) How does a national market of essentially 4 possible mobile providers qualify as more competitive than the countless local ISPs that proliferated throughout the 1990's?
c) By what possible metric is the mobile market changing more rapidly than the Internet did through the last decade's dot com bubble and even if this is true how does this possibly change the fact that the Internet is still a public resource?
3) Your fifth point creates "differentiated online services" or in other words, the exact opposite of what your second bullet hinted at protecting, which is not surprising since this "wireline" (not a word because it's a distinction without a difference) "neutral" network is protected by language no stronger than a "presumed principal".
4) You mention that your proposal will depend on annual reports to congress in order to protect consumer rights. How is this not moving from proactive consumer protections to reactive consumer compensation, thus enabling consumer abuses that would otherwise be prevented?
Dear Google,
ReplyDeleteWhatever happened to "Don't be evil?"
This ridiculous artificial distinction between "wireless" and "wireline" internet is bullshit, and you ought to know it.
Multitudes of young adults, myself included, already don't have landline phone service--who needs one when we all have cell phones? Given the way technology is going, it won't be long before most people's primary access to the internet is wireless as well.
Don't spin propaganda. You're not trying to protect the internet. You're trying to destroy it.
I suppose we could just wait for our clueless legislatures or big business to just capitalize on the open nature of the internet...I mean, its just a matter of time (riaa anyone?)
ReplyDeleteOr, those with the interest to get as many people as possible to use the internet as possible can step up and offer a solution that the chaotic bunch (many posting here) cannot do on their own...
Verizon and google make money when you USE the internet and encouraging that practice makes sense...as does much of the proposal, but I am not sure many naysayers has aftually read (or perhaps comprehended) it?
Make the fcc step up and do its job rather than be a roadblock and encourage online innovation?! I say go for it!
this is not fair, it should be equal with no exceptions. Google, please do good, and stop doing what you said you wouldn't.
ReplyDeleteThis is a sad day. Why is wireless different? Google has sold out. I'm now looking for alternative search engines, mail, docs, etc. Let my google boycott begin.
ReplyDeleteDon't be fooled. This proposal is very deceptive. More and more of the internet is being consumed by wireless devices every day. This framework simply states: "We're gonna let you have your precious vintage cable modem, but from now on you're gonna have to pay". Thanks, for nothing. Now I have to abandon my Gmail. How will my mom video chat with me? I'm heart broken.
ReplyDeleteWireless rules should be the same as wired rules. Google and Verizon are trying a quickie???
ReplyDeleteNO for wired! NO for wireless!
ReplyDeleteNet neutrality on all platforms must be strictly enforced.
Firstly because We the subscribers are charged by the providers for our connection speed. Consequently We ALL have the right to view whatever content we choose to view at the same speed. Providers have no right to adjust the speed dependant on which sites we are choosing to view.
Secondly because this will stifle innovation and competition. Smaller growing companies who can't afford to pay for increased bandwidth will be unable to compete with larger established companies who can.
How fast Google have forgotten where they came from! What happened to "do no evil"?
Google came from nothing because of their fast efficient search engine. Where would they be now if the speed of their search engine had been stifled because the established competition could pay to consistently out perform them?
This makes very very disappointed in Google and makes me feel very foolish for trusting them.
ReplyDeleteI think the time has come for us all to consider what power the people have.
ReplyDeleteIt is time to make a stand.
Consider this,...
What if everyone who believed the net neutrality is paramount, and on September 1st 2010 made a stand.
All of them dropped verizon phone, verizon wireless, verizon fios and verizon fios tv.
What if all of the people who believe this is important, did a similar thing to google? Stopped using google for anything. No Searches, no email, no google voice, no google maps, no buzz etc?
Do you think they would take notice?
Not just for a day, but a huge slap in their face. No more google , no more verizon ever. If the people take a stand. the companies will surely fail quickly.
While I would not want to see companies fail, I would prefer they live up to their word. When they don't and they think they are bigger than life, it is time to take them down a notch.
Verizon as a company can be wiped off the map in mere months if just 40% of the people canceled their accounts.
Google may take a bit longer, but keep in mind, the share holders would tell google what to do if they noticed a difference.
If people saw verizon fail then sprint and att would not attempt such an idiot idea.
I will be leave everything google and everything verizon on September 1st 2010.
Please join me.
Make a stand!
On September 1st, 2010, stop using Google for anything. Cancel your Verizon accounts.
Start to set everything up now to work around.
Some people simply can not, and have some requirements and may only be able to cut some of the services. Others can cut them all as there is other alternatives.
I will cut all their services on September 1st 2010.
Instead of verizon wireless I will use sprint.
Instead of verizon phone services I will use vonage.
Instead of verizon fios internet I will use time warner cable.
Instead of Fios TV I will use time warner Cable.
Instead of google maps I will use Bing.
Instead of google search I will use bing search.
Instead of google gmail I will use windows live or live.com
On September 1st, 2010 I will remove all things google or verizon from my cell phones and computer.
I will not come back to Verizon as I belief they overstepped their bounds.
I will not come back to google as I belief with this mistake they should fail.
Good Bye Verizon
Good Bye Google.
You signed my cancellation when you ended net neutrality.
Please join me and make a stand on September 1st 2010.
Congrats on telling us how wonderful your grand plans are for our protection, while exempting Verizon and others who might not allow your Android phones if you don't play ball their way.
ReplyDeleteGoogle's announcement of this agreement links to several pages that thing this is a good agreement, or at least not-too-bad. It does not link to articles like this one in Wired:
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/why-google-became-a-carrier-humping-net-neutrality-surrender-monkey/
I trust Wired, mostly. The URL itself pretty much sums up that author's opinion. He points out several things such as, the hype about how wonderful this all is supposed to be for protecting our freedom from "wireline" carriers while specifically exempting wireless carriers from the same rules (such as, ummm, Verizon). He goes on to say it's about boycott pressure the wireless companies are putting on Android phones unless they can cripple and control them. He also mentions this:
(In an early sign of what was to come Monday, Google even removed, at T-Mobile’s insistence, apps from the market that let Android users use their phones as modems for laptops.)
No link to this article either:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/alertfax/3299
Or this one:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/08/google-verizon-netneutrality
Say it ain't so, Google; please show us all the benefits your agreement brought to us, ASAP. We admired your stand in China, but now you bend over for Verizon, and T-Mobile, and who knows who else. Was it just an inferior legal staff? Give us reasons to trust you with all that data you collect and all the apps and offline storage you want us to depend upon.
it's not enough that there are already tiered costs for internet access? now you want to add an additional layer and charge extra in addition to the costs that these "new" applications will cost? this just sounds like a way to raise access rates. how will these new services/applications relate to the already tiered access costs for wireline networks? or is this just a way to charge more for wireless access because those costs will come down just as the cost of a cellular phone call did.
ReplyDeleteWhile I applaud your commitment to net neutrality on wireline broadband internet service, I disagree with your desire to have wireless internet free from such requirements. It is clear to me and many others that wireless will be the internet connection of the future, that in a matter of years we will be able to connect to the web from our phones -- soon to be mobile computers -- anywhere. Wireline broadband will be used less and less as our mobile computers become Wi-Fi hubs for our household and office internet access.
ReplyDeleteThese connections will be over the public airwaves. As these airwaves belong to us, the FCC has an obligation to ensure that they are used in the "public interest" as with AM/FM radio. For this reason, it is more critical, not less, that all networks on these airwaves remain
neutral and equally accessible to all American consumers and all American businesses.
No No No, wrong wrong wrong on every account, Google stop lying, this may be your downfall.
ReplyDeleteNet Neutrality is so important, Verizon are so untrustworthy. I wouldn't been seen dead with them.
This is about Streaming Verizon content on YouTube, so Google can make more money! PERIOD.
how far you have fallen google...for all you supporters, read the proposal letter of the law...give providers to option of "prioritize content" is no less then a veil for pay for priority...Google, stop your activity or i will drop you so fast you will make a sound, can we say "bing"? dont want to do it, I have used google for years but your desire to capitalize and kill neutrality is greedy and against the prinipcals of true "freedom"
ReplyDeleteWell that's disappointing. I was hoping to come here and read something that actually refuted what the press has been saying but as it turns out Google has sold out.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's time to get rid of the "Don't be Evil" thing. It's now officially hypocritical.
I'm saddened by the number of people who don't realize research, development and innovation come from the capitalistic system. Considering the track record of the last 50 years or so, I wouldn't let the government regulate my cat's litter box.
ReplyDeleteI feel that this proposal you've brought with Verizon is a huge let down. Considering the significant amount of power you've consolidated over the years, many have feared your actions. Until now, I never did. You seemed to be ethical stewards of information. However, this proposal is little more than a "foot in the door" against net neutrality.
ReplyDeleteIf "prioritized" networks are built (wireless or otherwise), what stops companies from abandoning the open internet for their privatized networks? Why would they spend capital maintaining and updating the "free and open" internet when they have another network that demands the same resources but is a cash cow?
Please stand by your unofficial motto... don't be evil.
Incredibly negative public response. I would like to see Google publicly clarify their thoughts and intentions surrounding this proposal. For instance, why is it necessary? Perhaps provide some data/evidence that supports the claims of necessity in the proposal.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all:
ReplyDeletethis proposal comes from within the corporate world, not the government. This is a capitalist nightmare, not a socialist one.
Second of all: How do we now avoid Google in order to protest this? I'd love to "boycott" Google by ending my use of their services, but Google has become my primary interface for the internet. That said, this would be a prime time for any potentially ample competitors to step up. I'll be keeping my eyes out.
Hogwash. Google (Don't be Evil) is now in bed with (even though the service is wonderful) one of the most Evil Companies on the planet. Verizon is the model for anti-competitive, anti-innovation, anti-consumer behavior. Are we really surprised that the result of this arrangement is the opposite of net-neutrality? This proposal in no way promotes net neutrality. Most future growth and investment is in wireless services. The argument that "wireless is a new and developing" business model that requires exemptions from net neutrality is identical to the argument used by the wireline carriers in their opposition to net-neutrality.
ReplyDeleteOh yes, clearly VZ is VERY concerned about the"rapid deployment" of broadband. This is why they've been dumping their rural territories across the country (territories which for the most part are still stuck with dial-up). Go ahead and google "Hawaii Telcom" or "FairPoint" and "bankruptcy" to see how these spinoffs have faired.
ReplyDeleteThis is clearly about creating an advantage for these giant incumbant companies and whatever new technology they have in the works.
Oh yeah. Clearly VZ is VERY concerned about "rapid deployment" of broadband, as evidenced by their rapid selloffs of all their rural territories, which for the most part are still stuck with dial up. Go ahead and google "Hawaii Telcom bankruptcy" or "FairPoint bankruptcy" to see how those ventures have faired.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html
ReplyDeleteWhat happened since 2006?
why u do dis google?
ReplyDeletedont play both sides at once. when verizon gets its tiered internet, do you think prices will raise or fall for you?
just keep it in mind for the future.
if verizon wants to send iptv over fios they can change the technology to have seperate frequencies for verizon and a seperate frequency for the internets. like how cable internet can get 45MB/s with half internet frequencies and half analog/digital cable tv frequencies.
why make 'online services' prioritized when they can do it now without touching the internet at all?
Google, you've broken my heart. You really have. Unregulated wireless... sigh.
ReplyDeleteHere's a lesson in psychology:
ReplyDeleteIf you have bad news or need to ask for a favor, start out with 5 positive things to say, then slip yours in as #6, and then follow it up with another positive. No one will notice.
Unrelated fact: In a few years MOST of the internet will be accessed via wireless.
Un-Like
ReplyDeleteEvil google Evil google Evil google.
ReplyDeleteYou guys just went over to the dark side.
Go F-your self and then your father but leave the rest of us out of it.
ReplyDeleteReading through the baloney, you basically want to treat broadband differently than the rest of the internet, creating a two-tiered internet without real regulatory oversight where the broadband providers can block whomever they want, whenever they want, or slow down some service in favor of providing rich people faster service.
ReplyDeleteNot Net Neutrality. BAD Google, no donut.
What happened to "don't be evil"?
ReplyDeleteBy gutting the FCC's authority, this proposal steals away the freedom and voice of the American people.
The internet was developed using taxpayer dollars. It should not simply be handed over to ilk like Google and Verizon who seem intent on destroying it for their own profit.
A horrible idea clearly implemented from the 'Horrible levels of evil' division at Google. I can write your free and open internet statement in far fewer words.
ReplyDeletea) Data is data, no matter how it is delivered or what it is or where it is going. Every byte transmitted via any transmission method, existing or imagined in the future, is equivalent and will move with equal priority once on the network. Only the total amount of data delivered or placed on the network may be controlled by the service provider.
b) Service providers shall have no role as the enforcers of any DRM except for that of their own products.
c) Service providers shall never favor their own products or those owned by subsidiaries on their networks.
This is really low. Publish a document, and then give a completely inconsistent summary, so people don't read the real thing.
ReplyDeleteGoogle, you do not understand what the word "open" means.
Google Fail.
ReplyDeleteGoogle Fail. Wireless will eventually replace wired. There should be a clause that states that once it reaches a certain size or point that it is required to obey the same rules as wired Internet providers. I don't like the wireless proposals AT ALL, but if we must have them, then put a limit on it.
ReplyDeleteCablemodems will disappear slowly - In just a few Years. The future is Wireless wich will be soon faster then cables for the homeusers..... New services, like IPv6 is, will sometimes be bandwith crippled an you will be forced to pai for something you already have now .
ReplyDeleteIll buy some Google Shares to compensate that :)
PS: traffic shaping is generala useul thing. but NET Wide ?
Cablemodems will disappear slowly - In just a few Years. The future is Wireless wich will be soon faster then cables for the homeusers..... New services, like IPv6 is, will sometimes be bandwith crippled an you will be forced to pai for something you already have now .
ReplyDeleteIll buy some Google Shares to compensate that :)
PS: traffic shaping is generala useul thing. but NET Wide ?
Now that I've calmed down and thought about it a little, I can see that Google really had no choice. If they want to compete with Apple, they need to make deals with the Telcos. Otherwise, Apple, which has far more ruthless policies will own everything on wireless, and Google will be shut out.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure what to think. In one way, it seems like Google trying to take over the Internet, in another way, it seems good that they are trying to make a free internet.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations are due to Google and Verizon coming together to articulate a vision for real net neutrality. If all content providers and carriers adopted these principles, then innovation and competition will continue to flourish on the Internet. I would like to see this agreement extend to wireless. I do not agree that this document should be a framework for regulation or legislation. Let the IETF adopt it. More details at http://blog.inphotonicsresearch.com/.
ReplyDeleteGee Google, conspiring with the enemy, hu8h? Well, no more thinking you are the "good guys". As of today you get a red suit, horns, and a tail, emblazoned with "TRAITOR". let me make something very clear to you - your stance on net neutrality will not be tolerated. There will be no tiers for net service, and how dare you have the insolent temerity to think we will tolerate your stance. We will not! NO ONE gets to control the internet, or we will take it away from you, and your company can go the way of Alta Vista, Jeeves, and the other losers who dared try to defy the public. This is our internet, not yours, and neither Google, nor Verizon, nor even the FCC will be allowed any control. I highly suggest you reconsider your position.
ReplyDeleteWay to screw us Google.
ReplyDeleteIf you continue to pursue this policy of closing off the internet , I will move my blog and stop using any Google products, and I will encourage everyone I know to do the same. I am extremely disappointed with Google's move to this policy.
ReplyDeleteNo, case-by-case is B.S. and only pads lawyers' retirement plans. This is GARBAGE Google. You are taking a wildly about-face approach to what I thought made you stand out as a truly progressive company. You are just like the rest of them Google and this is one consumer who won't forget.
ReplyDeleteReally disappointing to see an organization who used to pretend to protect the openness of the net now be the very entity to attempt to bring it down.
ReplyDeleteWasn't you old slogan "Don't be evil"?
Google, you're such a joke.
EXTREMELY disappointed. For a company who's slogan used to be "Don't be evil," Google sure is looking like the big bad these days.
ReplyDeleteHow could a company that supposedly used to believe so strongly in the openness of the web make such a blatantly anti-neutrality move like this?
Google, you're such a joke. I hope some teenage prodigy creates some protocol very soon that reinvents the web and brings you to your knees. Until then I'll just have to hope the net doesn't go to crap cause of your actions.
Google and Verizon need to quit pretending that this is about the American people. We see through it. This decision was reached only by analyzing what your companies want. I built Google. We built Google. We built it as part of the internet, not as the king. If you want to push this, go ahead. But don't expect us to see it as a corporate takeover.
ReplyDeleteyay google! throw "net neutrality" under the bus! time to sell my shares.
ReplyDeleteIt was only a matter of time before you disappointed me, Google. We were fools to think you would do no harm.
ReplyDeleteThe Internet is one entity. How you connect to it is clearly your own choice. The Internet is already being capitalized out of existence! The Internet needs to be fully peer to peer with no service providers and no FCC and no regulation. If copyright protected content makes it onto the Internet, that's just the price we pay for an open Internet, you have to take the bad with the good.
ReplyDeleteThere should be no differentiation between wireless and "wireline" Internet. Wireless is just a way to connect to the larger wireline network. The same transparency should be applied and I should be able to use the network for whatever purpose I see fit with the carrier staying neutral (and ideally not collecting any identifying information along the way). The hardware is mine, the software should be in my control and I should be able to use any carrier to download any data. Anything else denies the freedom of users which are far more important than the freedom of providers.
well this is all quite disappointing.
ReplyDeleteThis is precisely the opposite of what I expect from Google as a company I respect. It is an insulting affront on the intelligence of the people who use Google's services and value net neutrality. It's as if Google has sold its soul to the devil and done a complete 180, making a speedy b-line away from previous statements assuring us that Google values net neutrality and respects integrity. I'm ashamed to have believed that a giant like Google could or would remain ethical. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Shame on you, Google. Shame, shame, shame. You have betrayed the people who supported you.
ReplyDeleteGoogle, the fact that you tagged this post "Net Neutrality" is ridiculous. I guess we're supposed to ignore the fact that everything you're proposing flies in the face of net neutrality?
ReplyDeleteTiered service? Pretty sure the internet has been fine without it.
This proposal "empowers" users? How so? Sounds more like it empowers huge, greedy corporations like Verizon and Google.
Google... We've cheered you on, supported your successes and mourned your failures. We've trusted you to stand for all who want open, free access and open source. Please don't throw your support behind restricted freedoms on wireless. I'm not thinking those companies need additional support for their profits on my $30 a month internet access. Come on Google!
ReplyDeleteDifferentiated online services? Learning the true scope of that ambiguous little catch phrase should make for an especially slow torment. I'm already looking forward to the years of fighting for the scraps of bandwidth the "undifferentiated" services will end up with when this naturally plays out.
ReplyDeleteGo Google Go!
Go to hell. And take Verizon with you.
ReplyDeleteWell, time to switch to something other than google. We all knew it was coming, you only be a big corporation fro so long before you bend your customers over.
ReplyDelete"... our proposal spells out the FCC’s role and authority in the broadband space".
ReplyDeleteWhat a pompous statement! Actually, I think it's the People and Congress who spell out the FCC's role and authority in the broadband space.
I strongly disagree with the lack of the non-discrimination requirement for wireless. Wireless growth is exploding. Just because it is an emerging market doesn't mean it needs a tiered structure. When the Internet was still forming, its success was largely due to its neutrality for any size startup. There is no point in having neutrality on one network if it can be made obsolete or irrelevant through market forces.
The "Additional Online Services" section is completely bogus. What additional service could ever be "distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband Internet access service"? If the bits are traveling through the Internet, it's not distinguishable traffic on the Internet. All packets are transported through the same layer on the network at some point.
The length of this article makes it suspect. All you have to say is, "We believe in net neutrality for all publically accessible networks that attach to the Internet."
@ WiMAX Pro while you show a good basic understanding of wireless, a decent if flawed understanding of wireline and then go on to conclude a fair bit of bunk, quite frankly by discussing only the "last mile" in either case.
ReplyDeleteRadio spectrum is radio spectrum and you do with it what you will as a carrier. Contrary to being new radio spectrum is old hat for most telco and cable carriers and has been used for decades. 4G and B4G are signalling and other minor changes not requiring much, if any, antenna changes and at the switches a new software and some new cards for new hardware.
From what I've seen of it under two hours works per switch. In the vast majority of cases a simple software update would be enough. So much for the problems you cite there.
And yes, due to the frequency modulation aspect of cellular systems (FM requires an analog carrier by the way that the digital rides on), there are inherent problems. Most of which will never be overcome, by the way, because of the nature of FM broadcasts.
Oh, you forgot such imparements as snow, sunspots, volcanic ash clouds, mountains, large buildings, buildings with an overabundance of rebar and anything else that isn't line of sight.
While dynamic the environment is anything but difficult because telcos and cablecos have dealt with it for years without complaint. While it isn't without cost the processing of signals from cell switich to handset is reasonably simple as everything else including the call itself is handled after that by the existing wired networks which the cell switches hand off to once the calls are established.
In short there is nothing new or complex ahout handling signalling types that telcos (in particular) and cablecos have handled for decades both in the end to end analog world and now in the end to end digital world. Cost increases are, therefore, minimal.
From that end there is no requirement to hive off wireless into a quasi-internet/really private networks, at least no massively increased cost reasons. And no reason cellular companies can't afford it given the fact that North America pays about the highest cell rates in the world for the some of the worst service in the world.
BTW, QoS issues remain as they are now regardless.
Your conclusion indicates that we, the general public should ask of permission to use open protocols on these quasi internet/really private networks while handing over to Verizon and Google the right to control content. It seems because you find phantom costs where none exist, at least technologically.
Sorry I can't buy that. First the spectrum being radio spectrum is a public and not a private resource. While cellular carriers may control the spectrum slice for the establishing and maintenance of costs they aren't in control of the content either on a voice or digital call.
Nor is this about applications. Nice try though. The Internet doesn't give a darn about the application as long as it obeys the fully understood and open rules you can develop or invent whatever you want. Fill your boots.
BTW, medical monitoring can be done now across the internet by cell if there's an app to do it. Landline is more reliable for that kind of critical application though as it isn't as affected by things like weather and atmospherics.
At the end of the day there is no valid technical argument that the wireless spectrum should be "privateized". The only argument possible is naked greed. Oh, and in Google's case, doing evil. I can't figure out your angle unless you're one of these "greed is good" guys. :)
Now if Verizon or Google want to set up a private network to compete with the Internet then go ahead and I wish them luck.
They should still be compelled to carry the internet as well so we can see just who does better in the end.
Oh, and one more thing. Streamed video is the bandwidth hog not bittorrent. Bittorrent is used for an endless number of legitimate uses beyond so called piracy.
Don't be evil?...Google, you are getting dangerously close.
ReplyDeleteHah. Is Google acting like Microsoft now? This is a harbinger of REALLY BAD things to come if its enacted or if those IDIOTS up in Washington can't legislate REAL Net Neutrality. This is NOT Net Neutrality!
ReplyDeleteThis is now why I run the Opera browser and Duck Duck Go searches. You had your day as the harbinger of change. Complete Internet freedom doesn't look so good from above now does it...
ReplyDeleteYou do understand that a "scalable internet" is built on exactly the same principles as the current dysfunctional broadcast television system, don't you? If Verizon and Google have their way, the public internet will be the equivalent of today's over-the-air free tv, while all of the best content will tucked away in premium content packages that will cost extra. Oh, and those premium packages will be given priority on bandwidth over the existing public internet. In other words, Google and Verizon are pushing for a system that reallocates bandwidth: the so-called "open" public internet gets less, and the fee-supported premium internet gets more. Oh, and you'll notice that the whole "openness" thing does not apply to premium services or mobile networks. Say hello to the corporate Internet!
ReplyDeleteThis is horrific to read and even more horrific to think about. I think the people who are saying anything positive about this proposal are dense and don't understand at all the underlying issues here. All they see is you wrapping up communism in a pretty little package. I bet they will be wailing foul though, if they are ever forced to pay almost 50 dollars extra on top of what they are already paying, just to do things like watch a film on netflix, download music onto their i-pods, browse youtube, update their blogs and pretty much everything else they are doing now for "free".
ReplyDeleteThis is outlandish. I hope and pray that anything like this NEVER comes to pass. You'll be alienating about 90% of internet users who pay for their "basic" service as it is.
Google - Code of Conduct:
ReplyDelete"Don't be evil."...
FAIL! Changes this, Google!
A two-class Internet isn't, what we want! A Internet, dominated by Google and other big concerns isn't, what we want!
to me google no longer stands for one followed by 100 zeros, now its one followed by 100 LIES!
ReplyDeleteWhat the hell, Google? You want to bring down the very thing that made you what you are? What happened to "Don't be evil"?
ReplyDeleteI agree that this is worrisome and a neutrality fail. Why sell out a favorable public image in this way, I really don't get it. Take a step back.
ReplyDeleteShame on you, Google; you are now evil!
ReplyDeleteIn the end i feel its just a money game. Google doesn't want to loose to faceb.
ReplyDeleteThe open internet can be described very simply as follows:
ReplyDelete1. If you are an ISP and you connect your pipes to a public network that is the Internet, you're a common carrier.
2. If you are an ISP and you don't connect to a public network and create and carry your own content in your own private network, then you're not a common carrier.
3. If you're a common carrier, you *can't* discriminate against any traffic, nor can you favor just some of it if paid more money.
Think of what you're saying and ask yourself if you could apply your "tiered" proposal to public roads, power transmission, sewage or water service. My short answer is *no*.
How about...we don't do any of this because it's a horrible idea, and would kill tens of thousands of IT/Web Development jobs (as if we don't already have a problem with outsourcing already)?
ReplyDeleteThis would quite possibly be one of the most devastating catastrophes in our history of "freedom." And as for all of you saying "THIS IS GREAT!" and "GO GOOGLE GO!" how much is Google/Verizon/the FCC/Rothschild's paying you to post? I'm interested in a job...