Read the actual document before you go praising Google here. Note this line... "but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services and could include traffic prioritization" This means that your providers would be able to set caps on speeds for content served by those who have not paid for priority. This is very dangerous verbiage as it opens the door to a highly tiered internet that locks out startups and those who don't have the money to buy into a 'higher tier' of traffic.
Anyone who has paid close attention to the net neutrality debate over the last few years will see right through this nonsense. Any differentiation of services from the content-providers' point of view, any control of content, and any distinction between wireline and wireless are absurd.
Differentiation of content-oriented services means that the owners of infrastructure (big corporations) can truly determine what the consumer sees or doesn't see, has access to or doesn't have access to. This is doubly insidious because it'll feel to most consumers as if things are egalitarian, when really all that'll happen is that a large number of consumers won't have any idea they're unable to reach certain content.
And as far as wireline versus wireless, now is *exactly* the time to commit to net neutrality for wireless. Wireless is the future, it is where the action is, and it's where consumers will need the most protection in the years to come.
Come on, Google and Verizon. You can be better than this. Commit to the same standards for wireless, and be much clearer in your definition of "differentiation."
This is utterly ridiculous. Google, please do not do this. There's already a tiered market in the internet and that's called, Dial-up, Broadband, High-speed, 3G and 4G. Please stop. I am not going to be willing to pay more to access sites I've been going to for the past how many years. Greedy people need to shove it up their butts, and leave the internet how it is.
I'm all for "internet/network neutrality", whatever. But, none of this tiered, packaged deals, crap. I hope you listen to your customers.
If you read the end of page 1 and the start of page 2 you'll note that this proposal, while cleverly disguised as one which protects net neutrality, actually opens the door for ISPs to provide non-neutral service under the guise of "premium services". That and it completely demolishes any semblance of net neutrality on wireless networks. Come on Google, I thought your motto was "don't be evil", this is one of the most evil proposals I've ever seen.
The wireless exemptions and allowing 'Special Services' exceptions just gives wireless providers more options other than updating their infrastructure to provide enough bandwidth.
I dislike that Google endorses this and I am rethinking my close relationship with Google products and my plan to buy an android phone.
This is very important stuff to think about. There was this great theory, "if it isn't broken, then don't fix it." Google and everyone else should leave things alone. Google keeps trying to get smarter, although they are only breaking their own successful algorithms. The only thing required is removing spam/internet trash, the rest works...... As far as infrastructure and networking, of course there will always be technology upgrades to handle load and speed issues and that, we all pay for when signing up with ISPs as they provide the hardware infrastructure. I just want my online Job Search Engine business to continue thriving as it deserves to http://www.inovahire.com .
By differentiating between the wired and wireless internet you do seem to be violating the principles expounded in your Summer 2006 letter. Your explanation of why is very nonspecific and not sufficient to explain whether or not you have decided to be evil.
I have gone through your article, I feel it is good, expecting more such articles from you, I will be visiting your website often will refer your website to my friends. Even i have found good information about Chet Holmes
This is the worst idea I have ever heard. Why should google and verizon control everything? Why is mobile broadband so different? The entire internet should be neutral with nobody controlling what I can and can't see. By having two companies regulate the internet and control what I can and can't see/do this goes against the purpose of the internet. Of course this is going to pass in congress because I'm sure they will just pay the right people and nobody in congress can turn down money.
Everyone on here is blaming Google, but shouldn't the real blame fall on Verizon? Essentially what we're talking about here - hypothetically of course ;) - is the idea of a big company bribing a telco to make their traffic flow faster than their competitors', right? If so, who's more to blame, the guy trying to offer the bribe, or the guy accepting the bribe? Personally, I'm more offended by Verizon. I pay money every month to Verizon, not Google. I signed a contract with Verizon, not Google, for unfettered, unlimited(that won't last long) access to the internet. And they're actually entertaining the idea of accepting money from someone to shape my traffic. And it doesn't have to be Google, lots of companies will want to get in on this. Everyone freaked out when Comcast did this torrent users, myself included. Sure, Comcast shouldn't have sold people a pipe to the net and then tried to regulate what they could use it for, but AT LEAST they were shaping traffic in the interest of network stability and there would be benefit to the majority of their customers. What Verizon would be doing in this scenario is shaping their paying customers traffic to the end of getting kickbacks from media providers. Personally I can't blame Google too much here. If I had made the OS for free, and given Verizon a huge sales boost, I'd want a piece of the action too. Apple made the iPhone and AT&T pays them big bucks. But this is a bad way to go about getting a piece of the pie, and it's Verizon who'd be letting us down if they accepted money from ANYONE to filter our internet.
"America must continue to encourage both investment and innovation to support the underlying broadband infrastructure; it is imperative for our global competitiveness."
Googlezon is basically saying that future of the internet and America relies solely on paying them(Googlezon) for a bunch of different services allowing us to access just about nothing and the things we can access Googlezon will just slow down buffering times or loading times compelling us to go buy they're internet services to access maybe a few different extra sites for each service. I would advise Googlezon to sway from becoming the Hitler of Internet access. Forcing us to either suffer through the Internet dark ages or give in and pay for crap service that wont even offer as much access as we are currently enjoying. Google and Verizon(Googlezon), they're just 2 crap organizations that want to make a crapload of money by basically doing nothing but putting up subscriptions that you can bypass with wads of cash... I renounce Google and Verizon what a terrible terrible plan.
I feel betrayed by Google. I would have had tatooed google to my body I loved their consumer centric policies and actions. Now, they are falling in line with the bullies of telcom. Gaurenteeing their monopoly of the internet by getting in bed w Verizon (aka Babybell). Why not just be the best rather than stacking the deck in your favor, horrible!!!!!!
I am appalled. My friends are appalled. My family is appalled.
You guys have have grown too large and are either being used by investors or are trying to control an arena you once bragged about being willing to share.
This is abominable, asinine crap. You are willingly trying to destroy the foundational nature of equal standing that make internet valuable and different in the coming ages of control.
There would have been a lot more cursing if I wasn't so worried about denial or censorship. To hell with you guys.
This is very disappointing. This is writing enormous loopholes into the quest for a neutral internet. You're making a pact with the devil, Google; I think you've forgotten not to be evil.
This is a pretty grim outlook on how this will affect the internet, but i think it points out how bad this will be for consumers: http://io9.com/5610328/how-the-googleverizon-proposal-could-kill-the-internet-in-5-years
these ignorant people who aren't reading all of this statement and shouting "hoooray google" should be banned from procreating.
Google and verizon are attempting to lobby and cement their control over how the internet will serve content and who will access it. the internet is one of the last free things filled with information. it's being bogged down with ads now which is bad enough. if this goes through i'm no longer supporting google, verizon or any other crook involved in this.
i'm sure there's plenty of comfy cabins in the hills i can move too and stay off the grid......
contact your representatives and fight this. ask them to pass a net neutrality that covers any access from any device, and allow no input from any industry that stands to make money from this legislation. oh wait, we live in the US where our reps are available to the highest bidder.
guffaw at anyone who thinks two corporations manipulating the internet for their own profit is socialist. no my friends, this is your beloved capitalism at work, the so-called free economy.
claiming to uphold net neutrality while setting regulations on internet access? funny how that doesn't seem to shake out and shimmy down for me.
google, i love you but show us some respect and cut the bullshit. this has nothing to do with ensuring net neutrality, but everything to do with furthering your profits with guess who, the folks who carry your phone???
this warrants a (and you'll excuse me) "bitch, please."
Pictures, and other media forms, depicting anything that proves that the government is not perfect and infallible are 'unlawful' in China.
Just saying...
We don't want you OR the government telling us what information we're allowed to have access to. Neither of you have the right to do so no matter how our internet is connected. Nor do you have the right to pick and choose which of us pays you more money per byte to use your internet based on how we choose to use it for. The bandwidth costs you the same amount of money to support whether we're reading a blog, checking the whether or playing a game. Period. Get your disgusting dirty fingers out of my wallet!!
I'm happy with the internet in its current form and cost. Any changes that Googlezon attempts to make which will increase the cost of internet use or access (whether directly, indirectly or through addition advertising), I will not support.
its time for freedom to rain... its not time for major corps to decide that they have to own the freest part of America. Back off... and at least show some dignity. eat shrit and die google and verizon.
Information is ammunition,with the right kind of information comes power, put the two together and you have powerful ammunition to combat your opponent. So is it any wonder that certain information is to be kept out of the hands of the people! The internet is a gathering house of information collected by the power elite to see what people are thinking and talking about. Once you know how people think, you can create an antidote to counter act it. For example, let's take the topic of 9/11. If people say it was an inside job, the powers to be can create a campaign to counter act that type of thinking by just saying,"those type of people who are saying that are un-American and nothing but a bunch of conspiracy theorist". You get the point! Now do your own thinking and draw your own conclusions as to why you think it might be that the power elite want to control the internet.
I've always been under the impression that Google wasn't an evil corporate giant. Thanks for proving me wrong Google. I'd like to have the same internet access as my neighbor -NO LOOPHOLES- I do NOT like the notion of paying more for special packages of content. Say NO to tiered internet access. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/technology/10net.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=google&st=cse
I've always been under the impression that Google wasn't an evil corporate giant. Thanks for proving me wrong Google. I'd like to have the same internet access as my neighbor -NO LOOPHOLES- I do NOT like the notion of paying more for special packages of content. Say NO to tiered internet access. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/technology/10net.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=google&st=cse
Despicable! Don't be evil Google! Nothing good will come from opening this door and I sure didn't see Google being the company to spearhead it. Sheesh.
Long, long time google fanboy here (hate to say "fanboy" but it's true). I genuinely believed Google was a company worth putting your faith in. Google was the exception to the rule.
Apparently I was wrong, very wrong. Do no evil was a marketing ploy. Google is the same as every other corporate entity.
To me this sounds like Verizon and Google are not only trying to get rid of unlimited internet but bringing the FCC in there trying to tell us what we can and can't do with our time on the internet.
The FCC would try and watch users and sites to make sure anything they deem as "illegal" will be removed.
If Google cared they would ask us what we think of this instead of trying to play "God" and try and tell us what is best for us.
I’m a software developer living in New Zealand and my guess is that you folk in America have to look at all the parties involved here, who’s going to benefit from this policy the most if it does go ahead. Obviously Google and Verizon will benefit and so too will future Googlezons, but the American people will benefit the most.
How so you say …?
Well America is in the red with a trillion dollar deficit. And yes China wants their money back! For someone like me who lives outside the US I will have to pay for these premium services too (if not directly then indirectly i.e. - my ISP price increases on my end – thanks Google!) if this deal goes ahead. Now all my hard earned dollars are flowing back into America. And yes you can bet your bottom dollar that Barack Obama knows this and that he’s been speaking with all parties involved FCC, Googlezon and so on, asking those dear to heart questions like “Sergey … your positive this can help get America out of debt?” :-D
This is pathetic. Free Internet is as essential as Free Speech. They're proposing "Free Speech in current public space but not necessarily in places built in the future". Google, we are not that stupid to see through your B.S.
"Fourth, because of the confusion about the FCC’s authority following the Comcast court decision, our proposal spells out the FCC’s role and authority in the broadband space'
What gives you or any other corporation the right to dictate the policy and authority of a Federal agency?
"Crafting a compromise proposal has not been an easy process, and we have certainly had our differences along the way."
Google should have backed out of this rather than produce this mutant baby of a proposal with Verizon. Congress needs to just step in and declare all internet traffic neutral. Once again, corporate interests influencing public policy.
It is truly a sad day. I was an early adopter of your services, and have been with you from nearly the beginning. I am sincerely contemplating what a life without Google will mean.
This so call proposal could not be more obvious.
Neutral = Neutral
There is NO compromise here, whether Verizon, AT&T, you, or any other company likes it or not.
I believe it to be true that this is the first time I have EVER had to lump you in with those "other" companies in such a way.
Very, very sad.
My only hope hear is that there is some sort of subterfuge at work here, beyond my current capability to understand.
This agreement is stupid. HEY GOOGLE REMEMBER WHEN YOU WERE THE LITTLE GUY? Could you have afforded that upgraded package? no. So sit down and stfu and let the fcc take care of this. I like their plan ALOT more than i like yours(which is quite sad seeing as how its the FCC, i mean come on).
Those that have left favorable comments have not read the proposal. You adovacte for an Internet that has paid traffic prioritized over free traffic. Your non-dicrimination point ends with "but the presumption could be rebutted." In fact your entire proposal is exactly opposite of what you claim in this blog. And your 7th point is not a "we are on your side" point at all. In fact, you are asking tax payers to cover the cost of installing fiber to rural areas so you and Versizon can increase your customer base. Your company has billions, yet you ask for hand outs while saying it is an example of how you support consumers. In fact, it is an example of how Google is now "corporate America".
Thank you Google, for reminding me that my cynicism regarding cooperations was not unwarranted. For many years I feared how strong you were becoming and then finally, as I saw all of the good you were doing I came to trust that when you said "Don't be evil" you meant it.
I came to trust that out there, among the Apples and the Microsofts, the BPs and the Enrons there really were people who could succeed without screwing the little guy over. Now again, I am reminded that even when a company *can* do well without doing evil, they won't.
I can't believe that I gave you so much trust. I never should have assumed a company could get as big and powerful as you have become and not come to see all of us as little targets you could use to fill your greedy pockets.
You have been reveled for what you really are this week Google. Just another evil, soulless corporation, out there to rip off the little guy for your own profit gain.
In fairness, it was *my* fault for believing in you.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go research other search engines, smart phones, analytics programs and browsers. They'll be doing evil too, but at least they won't be pretending they aren't. Either way, none of them could be as distasteful as you are to me right now.
Verizon and Google don't own the airwaves, they lease them. It is entirely appropriate to have the same standards of net neutrality for land line and wireless networks - IMO. That this discussion is happening now is very disconcerting to me as I think they are working to game the system prior to Apple coming on board at Verizon. Verizon offering a Pay for Performance model is like Spirit Airlines charging for baggage. Once it gets going it will be impossible to stop and we - the consumer - will be screwed again.
I have a really hard time seeing how this proposal benefits Google. Verizon has a reputation as one of the worst pushers of the "walled garden" experience. Traditionally, the most successful models for emerging technology have been those that provided for the most access to content, not less, even if it is "premium". The AOL walled garden, the internet portals ISPs push, and the "exclusive" content you get from mobile providers have all proven to be duds.
While the mobile space is developing and I'd gladly support prioritization by data type, regardless of source (video/VoiP prioritized over e-mail/simple text), the notion that Verizon exclusive content, or those paying a premium, gets prioritized over the public internet is disturbing and a step back.
I hope Google shifts this policy. I am a huge fan and advocate of your company and hope you recognize some of the flaws in this current policy.
"Prioritization of Internet traffic would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discriminatory standard."
-then-
"Reasonable network management includes any technically sound practice: ...to prioritize general classes or types of Internet traffic, based on latency."
-then-
"Such other services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband internet access service,... but could include traffic prioritization."
I don't understand why the post tag is "Net Neutrality" when this is obviously not net neutrality. The entire internet, present and future, should be neutral.
This is very disappointing coming from a company that seems to have been built for people (even though they profit off of people). Keep doing things to please the masses and you'll get (stay) rich. No need to get super-greedy now, Google is doing a good enough job as it is.
Lets keep the internet the way it is and not create two different systems. The internet has a way of regulating it self and I really don't want a secondary tear of the system. We don't need it.
Please read this Google!!! I love google but this is one subject i will not back down from. I have chrome not chromium my e-mail my home page has all been switched to google because i love the company. I am not going to make the argument for why google should back down from this, it has been done and well. You know the subject of net neutrality, you helped wright the book, your slogan is don't be evil. If you want to throw this in the trash than so be it. I WILL NOT BE PART OF IT. Please don't make arguments like wireless being different or limited bandwidth, I'm paying for the bandwidth I can do with it what I want! Furthermore these arguments are insulting to my intelligence. I have been on Google's side for a couple of pr upsets and will watch to see what google does here hoping they will just respect the foundation they helped build and back down. I am hopeful but lets be honest. Not a week before this google was claiming this wasn't happening. On my computer i have xp linux mint and a free partition waiting for chrome os. I am not confident it will still be there in sep and my e-mail home page it will all be something different but it is all up to google. DON'T BE EVIL.
I'm sorry, but I'm deeply concerned and offended by the following comment: "our proposal spells out the FCC’s role and authority in the broadband space". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Google and Verizon were in the private sector. Defining the "role" of a federal institution by a private institution - NO MATTER WHAT BENEFITS MAY BE ACHIEVED - is simply not correct in pricipal in a free democratic society. We are not Fascists, after all.
Wireline or wireless -- same rules have to apply. I know wireless infrastructure costs more, but maybe we need to fund that as a society, too, just so we don't end up having industry define that, the soon to be most important aspect of the Internet, defined FOR us. Wireless is the wave of the future. It doesn't take an oracle to see that. Wireline will soon just be the backbone for wireless, so an honest discussion cannot occur with these as separate entities.
I wont reiterate what so many of the comments here say, but i had to add my 1 single number to this list, hoping to bump the statistical noise up that much higher. Mine and "Piratekingdan" history with google is the same. I'll be pulling for you Google, because its still early enough for you to make the right call, but i'll be watching you closely.
All that money! Yummy yummy money! Ya don't have enough? Eh... It's hard to run an openly exploitative system when the herd can speak so freely among themselves... I'll bet no one much even bothers Verizon with comments. They already sold us out under Bush's Patriot act. No one expected anything of them. Corporations behave as psychopaths.
I actually had people from my family ask me about this issue last week, and I said "Google? No no, they're CHAMPIONS of Net Neutrality."
And then I read "element six" in this post.
Come on. The "wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world" -- how exactly? Why is there value in wireless data on your cellphone?
Because it has access to the INTERNET. Wired or not.
You must have felt *some* pang of "oh, shit, I wonder if I'll get away with this." Well, you didn't. And you shouldn't.
You have lost my respect this day Google. Or should I say, Googlezon?
I intend to make the most of not being forced to buy "specially catered content packages" for the services I currently get for free. A tiered internet service, will destroy, not only the internet in its current form, but also free speech on the web.
It is important for our children's collective futures, to encourage the current media as we know it to fade into nothing. Newspapers are on their way out. Blogs are on their way in. How much will the "specially catered news service" cost me to view these future blogs? Or rather, will I be allowed to view them at all? Does that effect or not effect my rights to free speech?
A joint Google/Verizon (Googlezon) Dictatorship sounds like hell on Earth to me. It will bring about a dystopian media shitstorm which will take centuries for us to recover, if not longer or even at all.
Google you have fallen from grace. Your original comapny slogan of "Do no harm" should be changed to "Money MONEY MONEEYYY!!!!".
Really this is how far your willing to bend over for Verizon. If you were send this press release back to the google of 10 years ago would they have gone along with it? This is likely one of the biggest cop outs in this fight so far. If you don't have the weight to push threw the right solution then admit it and back out of the fight, or change your company modo so that at least your not staining your self further with lies.
Google... the less regulation, the more competition - the more competition the better the internet will be.
These issues will clean themselves up by leaving it alone. As business make mistakes by providing bad service, competition will push them out of the market and force an open, transparent web. We don't need government policy to enable this. We just need time and choice.
Google we know you have stuck to your do no evil guidelines. But this pact with Verizon we cannot trust the words of Verizon and how are we to know that they are putting words in your mouth? If you value your customers you will back off the proposal and find another way.
Personal update; switched to from chrome to firefox, from google to altavista. I AM SOOOO MAD. This will not stand and i will post on google so maybe they see I'm not just complaining all i want is for them to back down on one freaking issue!!!
I just got a reply about the free market taking care of this. There is already a free market at play, the free market of information. Just as the (US) government cant prefer one religion over another my ISP should not prefer some information over another, the end... Do you really want to say that you would allow GM to sell a car that goes faster on some roads allowed by GM??? or the air bag deploys faster on those roads??? Bull! I want to use a product (that i pay for) the way i see fit. If the free market takes care of this then great but i don't want that left to chance. I love how people that are so scared of the big bad government controlling us are the first to defend big corporations in their attempts at the same gig. Just keep it simple DON'T EDIT MY INTERNET (and that goes for the FCC and Google). Is that really so hard???
All of you do realize that this is an act of self preservation on the part of Verizon, Google, and all of the other private companies involved, right?
They could stand idly by and do nothing as some of you seem to want but what you don't want to comprehend is that the United States federal government won't stand idly by. They want control, COMPLETE control.
Unfortunately, this isn't any different than Blue Cross/Blue Shield supporting national healthcare. These large corporations have adopted the "if you can't beat em, join em" mentality.
The LAST thing we need is nationalization of anything, let alone the internet. Someone said early on to "get a warrant". We all know that they won't need one.
Huh. Always wondered what would get me to stop using Google products. Now I know. Time to abandon my GMail accounts and block Google ad services. I'll check back on you guys in a while.
Vote with your dollars. how many bobbleheads pay for "tethering" so your other devices can use the internet you already pay for? Don't pay for tethering! Don't buy their "services" Do you pay extra to the water utility to flush your toilet? Do you pay extra to the power company to run a refrigerator?
Vote with your dollars people you can vote every day if you want.
it's funny to me that companies spend billions on the complex infrastructure pipeline, then everyone else comes out of the woodwork to say they should be able to use it on their own terms.
In 2006, Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt called for users to get involved in the fight for net neutrality, saying “creativity, innovation, and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight”. If this is truly the case, then we cannot afford to make broad sweeping compromises such as leaving mobile networks unprotected. The assurance of net neutrality on wired networks does little to counteract the consequences of a non-neutral wireless mobile network.
I believe when attempting to come across as being more in tune with facts and show yourself in a more enlightened light that you could certainly think of a better word to use than the F- word. It's like waiting to blow the candles out on a birthday cake without the candle being lite, Big disappointment!
Time to boycott Google.
ReplyDeleteRead the actual document before you go praising Google here. Note this line...
ReplyDelete"but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services
and could include traffic prioritization"
This means that your providers would be able to set caps on speeds for content served by those who have not paid for priority. This is very dangerous verbiage as it opens the door to a highly tiered internet that locks out startups and those who don't have the money to buy into a 'higher tier' of traffic.
shame on you google
ReplyDeleteI like my internet the way it is thank you.
ReplyDeleteNot happy with this.
ReplyDeleteThe "public" Internet was designed to be open and free - to share information globally, OPENLY for all.
What happened to Google's #1 principle "Don't be evil"?!
This sounds to me like censorship to a degree.
Anyone who has paid close attention to the net neutrality debate over the last few years will see right through this nonsense. Any differentiation of services from the content-providers' point of view, any control of content, and any distinction between wireline and wireless are absurd.
ReplyDeleteDifferentiation of content-oriented services means that the owners of infrastructure (big corporations) can truly determine what the consumer sees or doesn't see, has access to or doesn't have access to. This is doubly insidious because it'll feel to most consumers as if things are egalitarian, when really all that'll happen is that a large number of consumers won't have any idea they're unable to reach certain content.
And as far as wireline versus wireless, now is *exactly* the time to commit to net neutrality for wireless. Wireless is the future, it is where the action is, and it's where consumers will need the most protection in the years to come.
Come on, Google and Verizon. You can be better than this. Commit to the same standards for wireless, and be much clearer in your definition of "differentiation."
This is utterly ridiculous. Google, please do not do this. There's already a tiered market in the internet and that's called, Dial-up, Broadband, High-speed, 3G and 4G. Please stop. I am not going to be willing to pay more to access sites I've been going to for the past how many years. Greedy people need to shove it up their butts, and leave the internet how it is.
ReplyDeleteI'm all for "internet/network neutrality", whatever. But, none of this tiered, packaged deals, crap.
I hope you listen to your customers.
If you read the end of page 1 and the start of page 2 you'll note that this proposal, while cleverly disguised as one which protects net neutrality, actually opens the door for ISPs to provide non-neutral service under the guise of "premium services". That and it completely demolishes any semblance of net neutrality on wireless networks. Come on Google, I thought your motto was "don't be evil", this is one of the most evil proposals I've ever seen.
ReplyDeleteGoogle WTF are you doing!
ReplyDeleteIf you can't redefine "neutrality", redefine "internet" instead, huh Google?
ReplyDeleteGuys, this is Evil. We are not fooled.
The wireless exemptions and allowing 'Special Services' exceptions just gives wireless providers more options other than updating their infrastructure to provide enough bandwidth.
ReplyDeleteI dislike that Google endorses this and I am rethinking my close relationship with Google products and my plan to buy an android phone.
This is very important stuff to think about. There was this great theory, "if it isn't broken, then don't fix it." Google and everyone else should leave things alone. Google keeps trying to get smarter, although they are only breaking their own successful algorithms. The only thing required is removing spam/internet trash, the rest works...... As far as infrastructure and networking, of course there will always be technology upgrades to handle load and speed issues and that, we all pay for when signing up with ISPs as they provide the hardware infrastructure. I just want my online Job Search Engine business to continue thriving as it deserves to http://www.inovahire.com .
ReplyDeleteBy differentiating between the wired and wireless internet you do seem to be violating the principles expounded in your Summer 2006 letter.
ReplyDeleteYour explanation of why is very nonspecific and not sufficient to explain whether or not you have decided to be evil.
I have gone through your article, I feel it is good, expecting more such articles from you, I will be visiting your website often will refer your website to my friends. Even i have found good information about Chet Holmes
ReplyDeleteThis is the worst idea I have ever heard. Why should google and verizon control everything? Why is mobile broadband so different? The entire internet should be neutral with nobody controlling what I can and can't see. By having two companies regulate the internet and control what I can and can't see/do this goes against the purpose of the internet. Of course this is going to pass in congress because I'm sure they will just pay the right people and nobody in congress can turn down money.
ReplyDeleteThat's weird. A lot of people on here posting basically "FU Google", and I criticized the '7 point list' and my comment got removed completely.
ReplyDeleteGoogle doesn't censor what people read do they? Oh no, wait, they do.
Everyone on here is blaming Google, but shouldn't the real blame fall on Verizon? Essentially what we're talking about here - hypothetically of course ;) - is the idea of a big company bribing a telco to make their traffic flow faster than their competitors', right? If so, who's more to blame, the guy trying to offer the bribe, or the guy accepting the bribe? Personally, I'm more offended by Verizon. I pay money every month to Verizon, not Google. I signed a contract with Verizon, not Google, for unfettered, unlimited(that won't last long) access to the internet. And they're actually entertaining the idea of accepting money from someone to shape my traffic. And it doesn't have to be Google, lots of companies will want to get in on this.
ReplyDeleteEveryone freaked out when Comcast did this torrent users, myself included. Sure, Comcast shouldn't have sold people a pipe to the net and then tried to regulate what they could use it for, but AT LEAST they were shaping traffic in the interest of network stability and there would be benefit to the majority of their customers.
What Verizon would be doing in this scenario is shaping their paying customers traffic to the end of getting kickbacks from media providers.
Personally I can't blame Google too much here. If I had made the OS for free, and given Verizon a huge sales boost, I'd want a piece of the action too. Apple made the iPhone and AT&T pays them big bucks. But this is a bad way to go about getting a piece of the pie, and it's Verizon who'd be letting us down if they accepted money from ANYONE to filter our internet.
"America must continue to encourage both investment and innovation to support the underlying broadband infrastructure; it is imperative for our global competitiveness."
ReplyDeleteGooglezon is basically saying that future of the internet and America relies solely on paying them(Googlezon) for a bunch of different services allowing us to access just about nothing and the things we can access Googlezon will just slow down buffering times or loading times compelling us to go buy they're internet services to access maybe a few different extra sites for each service. I would advise Googlezon to sway from becoming the Hitler of Internet access. Forcing us to either suffer through the Internet dark ages or give in and pay for crap service that wont even offer as much access as we are currently enjoying. Google and Verizon(Googlezon), they're just 2 crap organizations that want to make a crapload of money by basically doing nothing but putting up subscriptions that you can bypass with wads of cash... I renounce Google and Verizon what a terrible terrible plan.
I feel betrayed by Google. I would have had tatooed google to my body I loved their consumer centric policies and actions. Now, they are falling in line with the bullies of telcom. Gaurenteeing their monopoly of the internet by getting in bed w Verizon (aka Babybell). Why not just be the best rather than stacking the deck in your favor, horrible!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI am appalled. My friends are appalled. My family is appalled.
ReplyDeleteYou guys have have grown too large and are either being used by investors or are trying to control an arena you once bragged about being willing to share.
This is abominable, asinine crap. You are willingly trying to destroy the foundational nature of equal standing that make internet valuable and different in the coming ages of control.
There would have been a lot more cursing if I wasn't so worried about denial or censorship. To hell with you guys.
This is very disappointing. This is writing enormous loopholes into the quest for a neutral internet. You're making a pact with the devil, Google; I think you've forgotten not to be evil.
ReplyDeleteThis is a pretty grim outlook on how this will affect the internet, but i think it points out how bad this will be for consumers:
ReplyDeletehttp://io9.com/5610328/how-the-googleverizon-proposal-could-kill-the-internet-in-5-years
these ignorant people who aren't reading all of this statement and shouting "hoooray google" should be banned from procreating.
Google and verizon are attempting to lobby and cement their control over how the internet will serve content and who will access it. the internet is one of the last free things filled with information. it's being bogged down with ads now which is bad enough. if this goes through i'm no longer supporting google, verizon or any other crook involved in this.
i'm sure there's plenty of comfy cabins in the hills i can move too and stay off the grid......
contact your representatives and fight this. ask them to pass a net neutrality that covers any access from any device, and allow no input from any industry that stands to make money from this legislation. oh wait, we live in the US where our reps are available to the highest bidder.
guffaw at anyone who thinks two corporations manipulating the internet for their own profit is socialist. no my friends, this is your beloved capitalism at work, the so-called free economy.
ReplyDeleteclaiming to uphold net neutrality while setting regulations on internet access? funny how that doesn't seem to shake out and shimmy down for me.
google, i love you but show us some respect and cut the bullshit. this has nothing to do with ensuring net neutrality, but everything to do with furthering your profits with guess who, the folks who carry your phone???
this warrants a (and you'll excuse me) "bitch, please."
now where do i sign up to bolster the FCC?
now how do i give
Google should be ashamed. Unfortunately it seems "Don't be evil" doesn't necessarily include "Don't shank your fans for an easy buck".
ReplyDeletePictures, and other media forms, depicting anything that proves that the government is not perfect and infallible are 'unlawful' in China.
ReplyDeleteJust saying...
We don't want you OR the government telling us what information we're allowed to have access to. Neither of you have the right to do so no matter how our internet is connected. Nor do you have the right to pick and choose which of us pays you more money per byte to use your internet based on how we choose to use it for. The bandwidth costs you the same amount of money to support whether we're reading a blog, checking the whether or playing a game. Period. Get your disgusting dirty fingers out of my wallet!!
Great job Google, you are no longer my home page.
ReplyDeleteThanks Bing.
I'm happy with the internet in its current form and cost. Any changes that Googlezon attempts to make which will increase the cost of internet use or access (whether directly, indirectly or through addition advertising), I will not support.
its time for freedom to rain... its not time for major corps to decide that they have to own the freest part of America. Back off... and at least show some dignity. eat shrit and die google and verizon.
ReplyDeleteInformation is ammunition,with the right kind of information comes power, put the two together and you have powerful ammunition to combat your opponent.
ReplyDeleteSo is it any wonder that certain information is to be kept out of the hands of the people!
The internet is a gathering house of information collected by the power elite to see what people are thinking and talking about.
Once you know how people think, you can create an antidote to counter act it.
For example, let's take the topic of 9/11.
If people say it was an inside job, the powers to be can create a campaign to counter act that type of thinking by just saying,"those type of people who are saying that are un-American and nothing but a bunch of conspiracy theorist".
You get the point!
Now do your own thinking and draw your own conclusions as to why you think it might be that the power elite want to control the internet.
Maybe ... Google IS EVIL
ReplyDeleteIs this User-centric !?
ReplyDeleteI've always been under the impression that Google wasn't an evil corporate giant. Thanks for proving me wrong Google. I'd like to have the same internet access as my neighbor -NO LOOPHOLES- I do NOT like the notion of paying more for special packages of content. Say NO to tiered internet access.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/technology/10net.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=google&st=cse
I've always been under the impression that Google wasn't an evil corporate giant. Thanks for proving me wrong Google. I'd like to have the same internet access as my neighbor -NO LOOPHOLES- I do NOT like the notion of paying more for special packages of content. Say NO to tiered internet access.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/technology/10net.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=google&st=cse
One day a real rain is gonna come and wash the price-fixing public weal-squatting corporatist scum off the streets of this country.
ReplyDeleteThe industry is so rife anti-competitive practices to put a thousand CEOs in jail tomorrow. DOJ, FCC and whitehouse.gov bought and sold.
Despicable! Don't be evil Google! Nothing good will come from opening this door and I sure didn't see Google being the company to spearhead it. Sheesh.
ReplyDeleteLong, long time google fanboy here (hate to say "fanboy" but it's true). I genuinely believed Google was a company worth putting your faith in. Google was the exception to the rule.
ReplyDeleteApparently I was wrong, very wrong. Do no evil was a marketing ploy. Google is the same as every other corporate entity.
To me this sounds like Verizon and Google are not only trying to get rid of unlimited internet but bringing the FCC in there trying to tell us what we can and can't do with our time on the internet.
ReplyDeleteThe FCC would try and watch users and sites to make sure anything they deem as "illegal" will be removed.
If Google cared they would ask us what we think of this instead of trying to play "God" and try and tell us what is best for us.
Ever heard of the phrase "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"
ReplyDeleteI’m a software developer living in New Zealand and my guess is that you folk in America have to look at all the parties involved here, who’s going to benefit from this policy the most if it does go ahead. Obviously Google and Verizon will benefit and so too will future Googlezons, but the American people will benefit the most.
ReplyDeleteHow so you say …?
Well America is in the red with a trillion dollar deficit. And yes China wants their money back! For someone like me who lives outside the US I will have to pay for these premium services too (if not directly then indirectly i.e. - my ISP price increases on my end – thanks Google!) if this deal goes ahead. Now all my hard earned dollars are flowing back into America. And yes you can bet your bottom dollar that Barack Obama knows this and that he’s been speaking with all parties involved FCC, Googlezon and so on, asking those dear to heart questions like “Sergey … your positive this can help get America out of debt?”
:-D
This proposal's name and spin are totally misleading. Google is really hitting a new low with this move.
ReplyDeleteWe criticize the Chinese government for manipulating the Internet, but this proposal is not much better for wireless devices.
There is only one Internet. "wireless internet" is a fabricated concept; there are only wireless devices.
This is pathetic. Free Internet is as essential as Free Speech. They're proposing "Free Speech in current public space but not necessarily in places built in the future". Google, we are not that stupid to see through your B.S.
ReplyDelete"Fourth, because of the confusion about the FCC’s authority following the Comcast court decision, our proposal spells out the FCC’s role and authority in the broadband space'
ReplyDeleteWhat gives you or any other corporation the right to dictate the policy and authority of a Federal agency?
Amazing. The tail now wags the dog.
"Crafting a compromise proposal has not been an easy process, and we have certainly had our differences along the way."
ReplyDeleteGoogle should have backed out of this rather than produce this mutant baby of a proposal with Verizon. Congress needs to just step in and declare all internet traffic neutral. Once again, corporate interests influencing public policy.
Dear Google,
ReplyDeleteIt is truly a sad day. I was an early adopter of your services, and have been with you from nearly the beginning. I am sincerely contemplating what a life without Google will mean.
This so call proposal could not be more obvious.
Neutral = Neutral
There is NO compromise here, whether Verizon, AT&T, you, or any other company likes it or not.
I believe it to be true that this is the first time I have EVER had to lump you in with those "other" companies in such a way.
Very, very sad.
My only hope hear is that there is some sort of subterfuge at work here, beyond my current capability to understand.
This agreement is stupid. HEY GOOGLE REMEMBER WHEN YOU WERE THE LITTLE GUY? Could you have afforded that upgraded package? no. So sit down and stfu and let the fcc take care of this. I like their plan ALOT more than i like yours(which is quite sad seeing as how its the FCC, i mean come on).
ReplyDeleteI think we have no problems with the current Internet.. Just let it stay that way.. Private Networks?
ReplyDeleteHow can you call it the internet then..
Those that have left favorable comments have not read the proposal. You adovacte for an Internet that has paid traffic prioritized over free traffic. Your non-dicrimination point ends with "but the presumption could be rebutted." In fact your entire proposal is exactly opposite of what you claim in this blog. And your 7th point is not a "we are on your side" point at all. In fact, you are asking tax payers to cover the cost of installing fiber to rural areas so you and Versizon can increase your customer base. Your company has billions, yet you ask for hand outs while saying it is an example of how you support consumers. In fact, it is an example of how Google is now "corporate America".
ReplyDeleteAfter the China debacle, in which you never should have gotten involved, this will be your second biggest public policy mistake ever.
ReplyDeleteThank you Google, for reminding me that my cynicism regarding cooperations was not unwarranted. For many years I feared how strong you were becoming and then finally, as I saw all of the good you were doing I came to trust that when you said "Don't be evil" you meant it.
ReplyDeleteI came to trust that out there, among the Apples and the Microsofts, the BPs and the Enrons there really were people who could succeed without screwing the little guy over. Now again, I am reminded that even when a company *can* do well without doing evil, they won't.
I can't believe that I gave you so much trust. I never should have assumed a company could get as big and powerful as you have become and not come to see all of us as little targets you could use to fill your greedy pockets.
You have been reveled for what you really are this week Google. Just another evil, soulless corporation, out there to rip off the little guy for your own profit gain.
In fairness, it was *my* fault for believing in you.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go research other search engines, smart phones, analytics programs and browsers. They'll be doing evil too, but at least they won't be pretending they aren't. Either way, none of them could be as distasteful as you are to me right now.
Verizon and Google don't own the airwaves, they lease them. It is entirely appropriate to have the same standards of net neutrality for land line and wireless networks - IMO. That this discussion is happening now is very disconcerting to me as I think they are working to game the system prior to Apple coming on board at Verizon. Verizon offering a Pay for Performance model is like Spirit Airlines charging for baggage. Once it gets going it will be impossible to stop and we - the consumer - will be screwed again.
ReplyDeleteGoogle don't be Gordon Gecko.
I have a really hard time seeing how this proposal benefits Google. Verizon has a reputation as one of the worst pushers of the "walled garden" experience. Traditionally, the most successful models for emerging technology have been those that provided for the most access to content, not less, even if it is "premium". The AOL walled garden, the internet portals ISPs push, and the "exclusive" content you get from mobile providers have all proven to be duds.
ReplyDeleteWhile the mobile space is developing and I'd gladly support prioritization by data type, regardless of source (video/VoiP prioritized over e-mail/simple text), the notion that Verizon exclusive content, or those paying a premium, gets prioritized over the public internet is disturbing and a step back.
I hope Google shifts this policy. I am a huge fan and advocate of your company and hope you recognize some of the flaws in this current policy.
Stop being evil.
ReplyDelete"Prioritization of Internet traffic would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discriminatory standard."
ReplyDelete-then-
"Reasonable network management includes any technically sound practice: ...to prioritize general classes or types of Internet traffic, based on latency."
-then-
"Such other services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband internet access service,... but could include traffic prioritization."
I don't understand why the post tag is "Net Neutrality" when this is obviously not net neutrality. The entire internet, present and future, should be neutral.
ReplyDeleteThis is very disappointing coming from a company that seems to have been built for people (even though they profit off of people). Keep doing things to please the masses and you'll get (stay) rich. No need to get super-greedy now, Google is doing a good enough job as it is.
Again, disappointing.
Lets keep the internet the way it is and not create two different systems. The internet has a way of regulating it self and I really don't want a secondary tear of the system. We don't need it.
ReplyDeletePlease read this Google!!! I love google but this is one subject i will not back down from. I have chrome not chromium my e-mail my home page has all been switched to google because i love the company. I am not going to make the argument for why google should back down from this, it has been done and well. You know the subject of net neutrality, you helped wright the book, your slogan is don't be evil. If you want to throw this in the trash than so be it. I WILL NOT BE PART OF IT. Please don't make arguments like wireless being different or limited bandwidth, I'm paying for the bandwidth I can do with it what I want! Furthermore these arguments are insulting to my intelligence. I have been on Google's side for a couple of pr upsets and will watch to see what google does here hoping they will just respect the foundation they helped build and back down. I am hopeful but lets be honest. Not a week before this google was claiming this wasn't happening. On my computer i have xp linux mint and a free partition waiting for chrome os. I am not confident it will still be there in sep and my e-mail home page it will all be something different but it is all up to google. DON'T BE EVIL.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but I'm deeply concerned and offended by the following comment: "our proposal spells out the FCC’s role and authority in the broadband space". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Google and Verizon were in the private sector. Defining the "role" of a federal institution by a private institution - NO MATTER WHAT BENEFITS MAY BE ACHIEVED - is simply not correct in pricipal in a free democratic society. We are not Fascists, after all.
ReplyDeleteWireline or wireless -- same rules have to apply. I know wireless infrastructure costs more, but maybe we need to fund that as a society, too, just so we don't end up having industry define that, the soon to be most important aspect of the Internet, defined FOR us. Wireless is the wave of the future. It doesn't take an oracle to see that. Wireline will soon just be the backbone for wireless, so an honest discussion cannot occur with these as separate entities.
ReplyDeleteI wont reiterate what so many of the comments here say, but i had to add my 1 single number to this list, hoping to bump the statistical noise up that much higher.
ReplyDeleteMine and "Piratekingdan" history with google is the same.
I'll be pulling for you Google, because its still early enough for you to make the right call, but i'll be watching you closely.
All that money!
ReplyDeleteYummy yummy money!
Ya don't have enough?
Eh... It's hard to run an openly exploitative system when the herd can speak so freely among themselves...
I'll bet no one much even bothers Verizon with comments. They already sold us out under Bush's Patriot act.
No one expected anything of them.
Corporations behave as psychopaths.
I actually had people from my family ask me about this issue last week, and I said "Google? No no, they're CHAMPIONS of Net Neutrality."
ReplyDeleteAnd then I read "element six" in this post.
Come on. The "wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world" -- how exactly? Why is there value in wireless data on your cellphone?
Because it has access to the INTERNET. Wired or not.
You must have felt *some* pang of "oh, shit, I wonder if I'll get away with this." Well, you didn't. And you shouldn't.
SHAME.
HOW THE GOOGLE/VERIZON PROPOSAL COULD KILL THE INTERNET....
ReplyDeletehttp://io9.com/5610328/how-the-googleverizon-proposal-could-kill-the-internet-in-5-years
everyone should go to: http://www.savetheinternet.com/
ReplyDeleteread what this pact really means and how it will be harmful to free speech via the internet
You have lost my respect this day Google. Or should I say, Googlezon?
ReplyDeleteI intend to make the most of not being forced to buy "specially catered content packages" for the services I currently get for free. A tiered internet service, will destroy, not only the internet in its current form, but also free speech on the web.
It is important for our children's collective futures, to encourage the current media as we know it to fade into nothing. Newspapers are on their way out. Blogs are on their way in. How much will the "specially catered news service" cost me to view these future blogs? Or rather, will I be allowed to view them at all? Does that effect or not effect my rights to free speech?
A joint Google/Verizon (Googlezon) Dictatorship sounds like hell on Earth to me. It will bring about a dystopian media shitstorm which will take centuries for us to recover, if not longer or even at all.
Google you have fallen from grace. Your original comapny slogan of "Do no harm" should be changed to "Money MONEY MONEEYYY!!!!".
Really this is how far your willing to bend over for Verizon. If you were send this press release back to the google of 10 years ago would they have gone along with it? This is likely one of the biggest cop outs in this fight so far. If you don't have the weight to push threw the right solution then admit it and back out of the fight, or change your company modo so that at least your not staining your self further with lies.
ReplyDeleteJust leave the internet like it is. I think it is fine right now.
ReplyDeleteAnyone know where the anti-net neutrality petition is?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGoogle... the less regulation, the more competition - the more competition the better the internet will be.
ReplyDeleteThese issues will clean themselves up by leaving it alone. As business make mistakes by providing bad service, competition will push them out of the market and force an open, transparent web. We don't need government policy to enable this. We just need time and choice.
Google we know you have stuck to your do no evil guidelines. But this pact with Verizon we cannot trust the words of Verizon and how are we to know that they are putting words in your mouth? If you value your customers you will back off the proposal and find another way.
ReplyDeleteEt tu Google?
ReplyDeletePersonal update; switched to from chrome to firefox, from google to altavista. I AM SOOOO MAD. This will not stand and i will post on google so maybe they see I'm not just complaining all i want is for them to back down on one freaking issue!!!
ReplyDeleteI just got a reply about the free market taking care of this. There is already a free market at play, the free market of information. Just as the (US) government cant prefer one religion over another my ISP should not prefer some information over another, the end... Do you really want to say that you would allow GM to sell a car that goes faster on some roads allowed by GM??? or the air bag deploys faster on those roads??? Bull! I want to use a product (that i pay for) the way i see fit. If the free market takes care of this then great but i don't want that left to chance. I love how people that are so scared of the big bad government controlling us are the first to defend big corporations in their attempts at the same gig. Just keep it simple DON'T EDIT MY INTERNET (and that goes for the FCC and Google). Is that really so hard???
Leave well enough alone, Google.
ReplyDeleteAll of you do realize that this is an act of self preservation on the part of Verizon, Google, and all of the other private companies involved, right?
ReplyDeleteThey could stand idly by and do nothing as some of you seem to want but what you don't want to comprehend is that the United States federal government won't stand idly by. They want control, COMPLETE control.
Unfortunately, this isn't any different than Blue Cross/Blue Shield supporting national healthcare. These large corporations have adopted the "if you can't beat em, join em" mentality.
The LAST thing we need is nationalization of anything, let alone the internet. Someone said early on to "get a warrant". We all know that they won't need one.
Huh. Always wondered what would get me to stop using Google products. Now I know. Time to abandon my GMail accounts and block Google ad services. I'll check back on you guys in a while.
ReplyDeleteDo no evil google.
ReplyDeleteVote with your dollars. how many bobbleheads pay for "tethering" so your other devices can use the internet you already pay for? Don't pay for tethering! Don't buy their "services" Do you pay extra to the water utility to flush your toilet? Do you pay extra to the power company to run a refrigerator?
ReplyDeleteVote with your dollars people you can vote every day if you want.
it's funny to me that companies spend billions on the complex infrastructure pipeline, then everyone else comes out of the woodwork to say they should be able to use it on their own terms.
ReplyDeleteIn 2006, Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt called for users to get involved in the fight for net neutrality, saying “creativity, innovation, and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight”. If this is truly the case, then we cannot afford to make broad sweeping compromises such as leaving mobile networks unprotected. The assurance of net neutrality on wired networks does little to counteract the consequences of a non-neutral wireless mobile network.
ReplyDeleteI believe when attempting to come across as being more in tune with facts and show yourself in a more enlightened light that you could certainly think of a better word to use than the F- word.
ReplyDeleteIt's like waiting to blow the candles out on a birthday cake without the candle being lite, Big disappointment!