Monday, August 9, 2010

A joint policy proposal for an open Internet



The original architects of the Internet got the big things right. By making the network open, they enabled the greatest exchange of ideas in history. By making the Internet scalable, they enabled explosive innovation in the infrastructure.

It is imperative that we find ways to protect the future openness of the Internet and encourage the rapid deployment of broadband. Verizon and Google are pleased to discuss the principled compromise our companies have developed over the last year concerning the thorny issue of “network neutrality.”

In October, our two companies issued a shared statement of principles on network neutrality. A few months later we submitted a joint filing to the FCC, and in an April joint op-ed our CEOs discussed their common interest in an open Internet. Since that time, we have listened to all sides of the debate, engaged in good faith with policy makers in multiple venues, and challenged each other to craft a balanced policy framework. We have been guided by the two main goals:

     1. Users should choose what content, applications, or devices they use, since openness has been central to the explosive innovation that has made the Internet a transformative medium.

     2. America must continue to encourage both investment and innovation to support the underlying broadband infrastructure; it is imperative for our global competitiveness.

Today our CEOs will announce a proposal that we hope will make a constructive contribution to the dialogue. Our joint proposal takes the form of a suggested legislative framework for consideration by lawmakers, and is laid out here. Below we discuss the seven key elements:

First, both companies have long been proponents of the FCC’s current wireline broadband openness principles, which ensure that consumers have access to all legal content on the Internet, and can use what applications, services, and devices they choose. The enforceability of those principles was called into serious question by the recent Comcast court decision. Our proposal would now make those principles fully enforceable at the FCC.

Second, we agree that in addition to these existing principles there should be a new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices. This means that for the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition.

Importantly, this new nondiscrimination principle includes a presumption against prioritization of Internet traffic - including paid prioritization. So, in addition to not blocking or degrading of Internet content and applications, wireline broadband providers also could not favor particular Internet traffic over other traffic.

Third, it’s important that the consumer be fully informed about their Internet experiences. Our proposal would create enforceable transparency rules, for both wireline and wireless services. Broadband providers would be required to give consumers clear, understandable information about the services they offer and their capabilities. Broadband providers would also provide to application and content providers information about network management practices and any other information they need to ensure that they can reach consumers.

Fourth, because of the confusion about the FCC’s authority following the Comcast court decision, our proposal spells out the FCC’s role and authority in the broadband space. In addition to creating enforceable consumer protection and nondiscrimination standards that go beyond the FCC’s preexisting consumer safeguards, the proposal also provides for a new enforcement mechanism for the FCC to use. Specifically, the FCC would enforce these openness policies on a case-by-case basis, using a complaint-driven process. The FCC could move swiftly to stop a practice that violates these safeguards, and it could impose a penalty of up to $2 million on bad actors.

Fifth, we want the broadband infrastructure to be a platform for innovation. Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today. This means that broadband providers can work with other players to develop new services. It is too soon to predict how these new services will develop, but examples might include health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options. Our proposal also includes safeguards to ensure that such online services must be distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules. The FCC would also monitor the development of these services to make sure they don’t interfere with the continued development of Internet access services.

Sixth, we both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly. In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement. In addition, the Government Accountability Office would be required to report to Congress annually on developments in the wireless broadband marketplace, and whether or not current policies are working to protect consumers.

Seventh, and finally, we strongly believe that it is in the national interest for all Americans to have broadband access to the Internet. Therefore, we support reform of the Federal Universal Service Fund, so that it is focused on deploying broadband in areas where it is not now available.

We believe this policy framework properly empowers consumers and gives the FCC a role carefully tailored for the new world of broadband, while also allowing broadband providers the flexibility to manage their networks and provide new types of online services.

Ultimately, we think this proposal provides the certainty that allows both web startups to bring their novel ideas to users, and broadband providers to invest in their networks.

Crafting a compromise proposal has not been an easy process, and we have certainly had our differences along the way. But what has kept us moving forward is our mutual interest in a healthy and growing Internet that can continue to be a laboratory for innovation. As policy makers continue to formulate the rules of the road, we hope that other stakeholders will join with us in providing constructive ideas for an open Internet policy that puts consumers in charge and enhances America’s leadership in the broadband world. We stand ready to work with the Congress, the FCC and all interested parties to do just that.

502 comments:

1 – 200 of 502   Newer›   Newest»
Taranfx said...

Awesome Google!

possomcrast said...

this is like fricking socialist crap y does everything have to be regulated how much will this cost us in taxes

George said...

Why not the transparency requirement on wireless?

Christina said...

Really great!! Go Google Go!

downtown said...

So both Google and Verizon really were lying last week, just like everyone assumed. I expect to be lied to by Verizon. I had thought better of Google. Sad.

Gus said...

This would be the first big step in the right direction... until our legislators screw it up.

Vishnu Gopal said...

How exactly is wireless access different just because it is more competitive? Isn't this a tad hypocritical? Everything is net-neutral except our oh-so-precious Android/Verizon traffic. Geez!

Systemaddict said...

Most important part:

---
This means that for the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition.
---

mening that centralized agencies can shut down - or degrade access - to "unlawful" (defined by US government) content such as wikileaks, etc.

Not good.

Tracy Rosenberg said...

What a sellout. Some Open Internet Coalition. Apply your principals to wireline and let wireless become the new capitalist wild west. Shame on you Google.

Rakesh said...

It's a great suggestion on putting a differentiated broadband infrastructure for services like health care monitoring, smart grid, educational services and will definitely fuel innovation.

Synthetic Zero said...

"Differentiated online services" sounds very worrisome to me. Basically it's saying, okay, there will be the public Internet, but broadband providers can produce all sorts of little private "online services" which only run on their private networks, don't use open Internet standards, use bandwidth which they wholly control, etc. What's to stop broadband providers from basically colluding to create a parallel "private" Internet which would be completely exempt from the net neutrality rules? I mean, they may in fact fail at attempting to do this, but it is a huge loophole it seems to me in this.

Secondly, I am not happy at all that this agreement says nothing about network neutrality in the wireless space. Why? Okay, maybe the restrictions ought to be somewhat different, but to say there will be nothing other than "transparency" really seems potentially very problematic.

wuasazo said...

Guys,

It may be useful to look south... Chile became the first country to guarantee net neutrality.

These guys from http://www.neutralidadsi.org/about/ (Chile's grass root) won the battle and passed the law.

Sources: http://bit.ly/9GBasG
http://huff.to/dD6jo7

Marcus said...

Who is google or Verizon to decide internet's future. What a bunch of arrogant people.

Andrew said...

Copouts on the wireless and 'differentiated online services' are really sad coming from Google. "Do no evil"?

The Marquister said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jonathan said...

If you can't redefine the word "neutrality", redefine the word "Internet" instead.

It's well past time to nationalize bandwidth.

Jan-David Jansen said...

Way to find a loophole in Net Neutrality via wireless, Google. "We will NOT prioritize our content (unless it's on wireless which is the future of networking...)."

Looking forward to tiered internet!

Andrew Carter said...

The same goals set for wired connections should apply to mobile connections. Current mobile devices aim to bring the 'desktop experience' in a mobile device, and cell phone companies already charge insane amounts for data (especially SMS!)

mirage said...

I'm curious whether all of these could be possible... It sounds as good way. So I'm crossing fingers they have power to do so.

This is not sound as kind of arrogance, this is society development and behind is business which is logical

Cheaper said...

Can be good for internet tv in the short term. I've been a big proponent of that medium as a replacement to cable tv on my blog (www.cheaper-tv.com).

My concern is that eventually wireless will replace wired as the primary technology for internet access. When this happens the "transparency" rule will be of greater importance.

jvolino said...

Why on earth is the link to the actual document to Scribd? Which requires sign-up to even download? Google and Verizon couldn't find somewhere on their own petabytes of storage to put up a simple HTML web page with the text????

The Marquister said...

...under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement."

So you're proposing allowing providers to discriminate against particular content or favor some traffic over others?

I'm just taking this quote: "...in addition to not blocking or degrading of Internet content and applications, wireline broadband providers also could not favor particular Internet traffic over other traffic" from principle 2 and assuming wireless providers - since the principles (except transparency) won't apply to them - could block and favor content.

Do No Evil Fail.

Andrew said...

Content is King - the 'joint statement' is a demand for broadband cash, but giving nothing back - how about promising not promote pay walls in shady deals with multinational monopolistic publishers?

jsled said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robb said...

My biggest problem with this is that it's Google+Verizon agreeing on ANYTHING to do with policy. Look what happened: Verizon practically got Google to say that wireless should not be regulated, even though Google doesn't say or mean that at all. These "agreements" look like cooperation, but they don't help and didn't help. Great intentions. Unfortunate outcomes.

Lawk Salih said...

Google + Verizon = Disaster

Kenneth Elder said...

Everybody deserves a little broadband... good stuff

Peter said...

Deal with the devil. Number 5 of course is the loophole. After years in the woods the new fcc seems to have plenty of good ideas about preserving net neutrality without input from two profit hungry corporations writing their own rules.

The Last Word said...

Time to go back to the very early days of Commercial Internet. Corporations consider the Internet of today their property. Do you expect better from a phone company? Really now.....Time for Internet 3.

Henry said...

Short version please?

Kyle T. said...

Seems at least reasonable to me. And the wekanesses mentioned (differentiated services and wireless) would still fall under the authority of the FCC to implement neutrality if and when it is beneficial to do so. (It's a little disappointing they recommend not implementing neutrality on wireless *yet*, but somewhat understandable since the wireless bandwidth is still very limited by the wireless spectrum)

jimmy_dean said...

Agreed. This will create a system where the only organization that can discriminate and exercise ownership of property is the government (FCC). What makes them so adept at keeping the Internet in good harmony? They are politicians and are power-hungry. You had better believe the future under a policy like this will be things like WikiLeaks and other questionable things will be deemed against our national security a pulled. This is not a win for our First Amendment rights. The government is far from an impartial actor, and this is giving them all of the power. I don't believe in large concentrations of power.

Chrome Robotics said...

Who cares if they want to regulate a new industry based on broadband usage? Google clearly states they intend to work with the FCC on leaving the current internet alone.

Rick, the showcatlouiefish. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Morrighu Tel Uvrith said...

Wow... I'm hoping for that last part - broadband in currently unserved areas! This amounts to the Rural Electrification Initative of the 1920's for the Internet for rural America.

As for why not transparency on the wireless - so much of it is covered by existing IP that you can't really be transparent and maintain your licensing of most of the technologies.

Rick Louie said...

"Differentiated online services" is a troubling string of words.

Michele said...

I LOVE you guys, love the objectives in the proposal. What would we do without you? This is awesome and thank you for being the voice for the powerless :) and defending and protecting the wireless web. Yay!

xoxo,

michele

Paul S said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom said...

Lame. I wasn't expecting much, and honestly, I trust the NYT more than GOOG-VZ.

Daniel J. Klein said...

If Google decides to engage in activity that disrupts what many believe to be fundamental a right of the internet-i.e., net neutrality principles-then they may be responsible for letting capitalist interests overcome social rights. This would be a congruent act by Google as a major corporation in a capitalist country. To do otherwise or to support net neutrality is not "socialism," it is a social desire. In the end, Google or any corporation or government that tries to restrict the common will fail, but Google should consider its legacy when it does ultimately fail. Google likely no longer has the wherewithal to maintain its original vision of "do no harm." It is too big, too rich, and too powerful.

Nthalk said...

Content segregation is a bad idea.

If priority streams are the issue, then make addressing them the solution.

Instead of creating classifications of traffic based on content types, just allow an OutOfBand/handshake priority specification.

Sell routers that do content analysis/prioritizations for legacy that consumers can use.

Inspire the use of them by selling prioritized data services, not content data services.

Make the laws simple: Understand and obey priority settings by clients.

Blanket content categorization is stupid and will be a major problem. Let the users decide, and the services provide priority and allow more innovation with service packages.

J Iannone said...

Love the exception for differentiated services. We won't prefer any traffic, except what we deem preferable.

^_^ said...

This sounds like a good start. The thing with net neutrality is where to find the balance between what the people, government, service providers and content providers would like. This sounds to me a realistic starting point that works towards a more idealistic view of a world without limitations on the internet. It would be better then what exists now (as someone who is stuck on Comcast).

I was laughing over the last few weeks as various people I know asked me about the rumors going around about what Google and Verizon were up to (and the worst case conclusions that were being jumped too), and this is actually rather close to what my guess was.

I like the idea of transparency regardless of what type of data. As someone who has to deal with wireless as part of my job, I can understand why it is being asked that there would be less initial restrictions placed on it. It is still changing quite a bit, and we still have a large part of the population that is getting use to the concept of wireless internet and the resources involved in it. I would hope that at some point in the discussions that there be goals (with timetables) set to move wireless towards the suggested standards for wired.

As for 'Differentiated online services' that has been something that has been around for as long as I have been "online". Even back in the good old days, different BBSs had different offerings. Email accounts could even really be classified as this. I do hope that it would prompt innovation.

Blair S said...

On the sixth point, that wireless should be treated differently to wireline, I strongly feel competition will ultimately decide. I imagine wireless providers will eventually become "dumb pipes" as the economies of scale proved during the nascent wireline days.

Diversity said...

I'm quite unpleasantly surprised by the wireless exemption. I had thought that since almost all of Google's revenue comes from search advertising, that they had a real commitment to a diverse Internet based upon their business model; the more readily-accessible and diverse content there is, the more people will search for it, and the more they will click on ads. But not nailing down net neutrality for wireless flies in the face of that assumption. What could their motive be? Did they compromise on wireless in order to be able to nail down the wired Internet via a firm regulatory regime? Why would they agree to this? Any ideas out there on what motives Google would have that could trump the positive impact of an open Internet on search advertising?

Rich said...

The proposition of neutrality in the wireless context is practically equivalent to "anyone can use any device on any mobile network" (technical considerations such as radio frequency bands notwithstanding). This is of course is something the cell providers are highly allergic to, lock-in being a huge part of their business model.

As such, a proposition for wireless neutrality would be a nonstarter. So, better to not propose it at all than to have another proposal undermined by including it in the same document.

Put in other terms: "Mom, I want to take the car to the drag strip and have ice cream for dessert" will get you neither, whereas "Mom, I want to have ice cream for dessert" and leaving out the drag racing gets you at least one desirable outcome. :)

averagejoe said...

The max penalty should be more than $2 million for violation of the rules. You guys know that $2 million is a drop in your buckets.

Everything is good with the wired rules, but we all know wireless is the future of the internet. Apply the same rules to wireless now or you are just punting, and in a few years we will have tiered internet still.

rks said...

When there is congestion there has to be some algorithm to determine whose packets get dropped. There isn't any obvious "fair" way to do this. How about: Each source (/destination?) company gets equal throughput? That could be fair. The way to build a fair Internet that innovates is to have per packet (and/or byte) charging on each transit network, paid by either source or destination or some combination. Endpoints need to specify routes and need to ensure that intermediate networks have credit for packets matching the spec. For individuals and smaller organizations ISPs would handle this for customers. This is tough but doable. (Transit networks might charge based on sampled rather than all traffic).

Xero said...

I see so you want us to trade and unregulated wireless future, for a semi-regulated wired present, with prioritized traffic that kinda, sorta, isn't prioritized? No thanks, and I don't want your bloody bridge either!

Callen said...

Google's philosophy:
"You can make money without doing evil."
"...Unless that money comes from wireless internet"

How can you say that you support Net Neutrality while verbally creating non-neutrality, segregating service into "wireline" and wireless internet?

ONE FREE INTERWEB!

Brady Myers said...

"don't be evil" is bullshit.

how far the mighty have fallen.

Screwed Dunes Customer said...

Er, Item #6 on your list is buried in the middle of all the fine print for a reason. It's the buried lead - wireless broadband, the likely future of the entire internet, escapes virtually all of your proposed safeguards around openness and nondiscrimination of content.

This is an appalling, anti-consumer stance, particularly coming from a company that claims to Do No Evil.

Not only are you attacking the future of network neutrality, you're lying about it. So that's two Evils. Shame.

Darome said...

Google is trying to sell the public out on wireless! The money and the future is in wireless , who needs wired when you can have fast unlimited internet and not be limited by a cord!!Net neutrality is not an issue where bandwidth is not limited (wired) but when you are having bandwidth problems (wireless) then you need tiered systems to throttle usage. This will stifle the internet instead of forcing ISP to invest heavily in infrastructure you are throttling the system. Wow this pisses me off, Google have grown up and become Yahoo ,selling us out just like Yahoo did in China. This will slow the growth of technology, make more profits for ISP and piss off lots of regular citizens!!! I hope that the FCC kicks this ball a 100 yards and doesn't agree. We need unlimited and un tiered data. Of course Verizon will soon be charging for Skype usage. We citizens need to band together to fight this greedy move. Lets see if Google will publish my comments!

Tim the Technocrat said...

Do no evil - over physical wires and fiber. What you do with wireless spectrum can be as evil as you please.

Bill said...

This is BULLSHIT.

Your Sixth part is just trying to set up a monopolistic division of the market. Indeed, EVEN WIRELESS must be OPEN TOO!

Indeed, you were lying last week.

Vishnu Gopal's comment bears repeating (and it's TOTALLY hypocritical):
How exactly is wireless access different just because it is more competitive? Isn't this a tad hypocritical? Everything is net-neutral except our oh-so-precious Android/Verizon traffic. Geez!

JKxZ said...

What morons or automated comment bots are posting anything positive about this proposal. This is a HUGE STEP BACKWARDS! You really want the future to be pay to play/use? That is what you are looking at.

Google and Verizon are interested in nothing more than making obscene amounts of money. They do not want to protect the consumer. Google and Verizon want to take something we have spent years perfecting and make it their street corner whore.

I'm done with Google and Verizon.

Where is the "Delete Account" button in Google? I guess I'll have to BING for it.

Michael said...

You speak like the Internet only exists in America…duh!

Re your statement. Just an excuse to start trying to control the internet…I wish you luck as you will be fought all the way.

jimmy_dean said...

For all of those comments stating Google is selling out by not applying the same regulation to wireless as to wired, your arguments make little sense. If this net neutrality regulation is such a great idea, then why wouldn't Google also want it applied to wireless? Maybe they're trying to simply do damage control themselves instead of waiting for other companies to mess it up against Google's interests.

I believe that Google's reasoning to not regulate wireless is an initial proposal so as to not allow government bureaucracies to hinder the growth potential of the wireless industry. After all, at the end of the day, nobody is better at stifling innovation and growth than the government.

anwaya said...

The airwaves are more of a commons than wireline: #6 violates this principle, in fact, it practically turns the situation on its head.

This on its own makes the proposal evil. It's not acceptable. It is wrong.

Ken said...

An Open Internet. Unless you just redefine a VoIP service, maybe Hulu, or Youtube to be "differentiated." And unless it's wireless, which more and more Internet is.

The basic fact here is that Google is against an Open Internet. Period. Google is anti-openness, and is totally and unequivocally being evil.

Shame on Google for being so anti-open. Nothing about this is remotely acceptable.

Ryan said...

By even involving the FCC you blow neutrality out of the water. The FCC decides what "they" think the people want to see/hear/etc and then go on religious crusades to enforce it.

I'd rather watch the Internet die at the hands of those who use it, then at the hands of the FCC.

jimmy_dean said...

@Ryan: I completely agree with you. There is some magic thinking by those who support this type of thing that the government is some impartial, completely ethical, moral creature. It's certainly a creature, but it's just as greedy and power hungry as the next thing. In fact, it's worse since it has absolute power in the U.S. At least companies can die if they do bad things, governments never die except with revolution.

paul said...

There's so much competition in the wireless space? Then how come the pricing and service choices still look so much like those that oligopolists would offer?

The differentiated-services thing is also a disaster waiting to happen -- it essentially encourages the big bandwidth providers to neglect their "plain old internet" and put all their investment into the unregulated side. (Those of you with more historical knowledge than a skink may recall exactly this game being played by telephone companies when they lobbied to have pretty much everything they did classified as "information services" and hence not subject to common-carrier rules.

DR.MANJAPRA VARIATH said...

Money Grab

Protonk said...

For an open internet when it serves you, against an open internet when it serves you.

I don't begrudge Google the right to make money by any means available, but sanctimony ill suits you.

motioncity said...

I am relieved to hear that this is the point of the Verizon and Google discussions. One question though, why are so-called "additional,
differentiated online services" exempt? We don't know what future online communiques will contain or what their nature might be. It doesn't make sense to exempt these.

Wilco said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nick said...

I don't buy the argument that wireless carriers should be exempt because of (insert meaningless filler words here). Net neutrality is net NEUTRALITY - as in without regard to what is going through the pipes OR what the pipes are made of.

If network usage truly is the issue (as AT&T continues to suggest), then price wireless data access according to supply/demand principles.

Right now it's like deciding gold is worth $5 per ton, and then regulating who buys gold and how much because it is scarce. If wireless data is so scarce and so many people want it, let the market set the price.

RK said...

Its only the beginning of the policy war. Its therefore uncertain what this legalese means. Lets hope couple of CXOs did not change the fate of internet.

mazda said...

Separate but equal eh? Plessy v. Ferguson had the same idea in 1896 but the Warren court voted 9-0 in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. "We won't get fooled again" - The Who, 1971.

Dwayne said...

I have to agree with averagejoe $2 million is a drop in the bucket. We've seen corporations make the gamble that the fine imposed is justified if the profits outweigh the penalty and therefor constantly abuse the system. I propose the fine be bumped up to $50 million, and up to $100 million for repeat offenses. thereby ensuring that nobody circumvents the rules for the sake of a quick buck.

Jesse's Sandbox said...

A thought about point # 6:
Without massive investment in high-bandwidth wireless technologies for mobile platforms, it's impractical to want net neutrality on mobile wireless computing platforms. Imagine a wireless world where users were allowed to stream anything they wanted, even if the extra bandwidth prevented one person from making a critical phone call during an emergency. The additional functionality of web on a mobile device via a phone network cannot supersede basic critical functions that have become staples of life for the broad majority of consumers.

From a cynical point of view, Google doesn't want an ISP blocking its advertising, no matter how obnoxious consumers may find advertising in 10 years. A shift in the advertising paradigms of todays consumers cannot come too soon: all of the billions spent on it simply come back as excess cost on basic items to the consumer. Car insurance is one such product.

From another cynical point of view, Point 5 brings up an interesting issue of exclusivity among ISP's. Point 5 pretty much encourages a (for example) Hulu-Verizon alliance in order to stream Hulu content to Verizon's customers exclusively. Or perhaps more important, certain healthcare providers would offer discounts to Verizon customers since Verizon has some exclusivity agreement with the maker of XYZ health gadget. That's about as subtley monopolistic as a company can get these days.

Points 2, 3, 4, and 7 seem conceptually viable as-is.

Alejandro Leal said...

Let's not forget that the wireless spectrum auction of a few years ago was won by none other than Verizon, Google and AT&T.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_2008_wireless_spectrum_auction

Why would they want Wireless to be exempt of any net neutrality regulation? Well there you have it, they want you to use their products and services, and only theirs.

Nicky said...

what the fuck google

Most important part:

---
This means that for the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition.
---

mening that centralized agencies can shut down - or degrade access - to "unlawful" (defined by US government) content such as wikileaks, etc.

Not good.

2nded

Alfredo said...

Total BS. And who says that wireless is more competitive that wireline? Using what standard?

alexloyal said...

Let's not forget who won the wireless spectrum auction of a couple of years ago, none other than Google and Verzion, among others.

Why would they want to exempt wireless from net neutrality regulation? There you have it, they want you to only use their products and services, nothing else.

They own your data, and the spectrum through which it passes, they own you.

Zaphod BeebleBrox said...

People WAKE UP!

Google already is EVIL.

1) Horrible ads everywhere.
2) Hoarding personal information.
3) Illegal wireless data theft and now
4) Private internet.

Let look at this in an example:

Your current broadband offers "x" mbps speed which may or may not be prioritised.

Google proposes to make this transparent with no prioritization.

But also asks to be allowed a separate private channel with Verizon which can be prioritized.

Not evil? Think again.

You current broadband speed will drop to x - "a" mbps but "may" become transparent. Quality of service will deteriorate.

Google and Verizon will form the private channel with "a" bandwidth which they will govern as they want.

Verizon is able to get people to pay for the private channel and Google gets to push its data prioritized over everything else.

Remember the bandwidth capacity under the ground is part of the internet. You may add as much as you want but it still will be part of the internet.

This is just a huge SCAM to own a part of this bandwidth as private property.

Haris said...

Awesome BULLSHIT!!! Google..!!Wasting time ....

CISTechie said...

Well they weren't really lying, its not a deal between the two just a joint proposal

anwaya said...

I would like to know why Google thinks that enclosing the wireless commons to enable differential pricing tiers is a good for society and democracy.

Moods said...

I highly encourage most of you to read the whole blog post in length before transferring your anger from w/e website brought you here. Mainly, read the 6th point. It says wireless is just so new, and because of its fast evolving nature they chose not to implement wired rules "NOW," not never, not "haha we found a way destroy the internet!!!!" In my opinion, it would be like trying to argue the rights of americans in outer space. The only thing they could guarantee is transparency. So again, please read the post before getting upset, or even just the sixth point.

Newfangled said...

Unfortunate for the concept of a free and open internet. The future of the web isn't wired - it's wireless. This proposal castrates neutrality and ultimately endorses a pay-for-play model.

I thought you were the guys in the white hats? As always, it comes back to the almighty dollar, doesn't it?

rowd149 said...

No. Google, you have to step up and push net-neutrality as its full, unaltered concept. We WILL lose ground in the legislative process. Why give any to them now? Push for ideal so that the laws will reflect as much of it as possible!

Chris said...

The internet is already split into have and have-not content with most of the have-nots outside the US.

I constantly read websites directing me to pages (mostly youtube) that tells me that I'm not permitted to view outside of the US.

The cloud based software is mostly free and soon even your OS will be free leaving you the money you would have otherwise spent to spend on online services that matter to you whilst still being able to freely run software on your PC.

Eric Grissom said...

‎"under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless" So wireless, the clear future of all information, is not subject to any of your suggested policies? What's to prevent corporate ISPs (who happen to also be content providers) from pricing consumers out of traditional "net neutral" broadband packages and migrating them to their discounted "Data Freedom" wireless package?

At what point is it all over?

b e n c o d e c said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
b e n c o d e c said...

Wow, the end of the internet as we know it...
Brought to you by Droid.

Brad said...

#1 - #4 Look pretty good and follow the "Do No Evil" parts as far as I can tell. #5 and #6 look completely evil. Did you guys write #1 - 4 and Verizon just ammended #5 and 6?

PeterG said...

If this proposal is ever adopted, the government should have tiered charges for use of the public airwaves. If a carrier is net neutral they get a lower rate but if a carrier selectively throttles content, then they would pay a very much higher rate.

amy leader said...

For Google or Verizon or any other corporation to make principals about this is against net neutrality. Google has been sucking up every start up company that they feel will expand the empire they have created. This is the very practice that has helped cause the downward spiral of the economy. They suck up anything that might create new employers and jobs like the Blob sucked up anything in its path. It also seems that they have stored private wireless network info that they sucked up when taking feed pictures for Google Earth. Why? Verizon gets control of the wireless internet through the double speaking loophole in the principals? WTH? I do not see how this is neutral at all. Come on Google do you not send your new employees to Neuroempathy class? How about using some of the worldly empathy to really get a better grip on this. Neutral means neutral and that goes for wired,wireless, and fiber optic and whatever else content will be transmitted by. No cherry picking allowed!

Smarty said...

Google, do you really think we are fools? What about net neutrality on wireless? And who exactly decides what is lawful or unlawful online? This proposal is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. I don't know how you even have the temerity temerity to propose such a flawed and greedy proposal.

Tom said...

If "premium" services need all the bandwidth or torrents and running services at home is deemed unlawful you have the crappiest internet anyone can imagine.

I hope this is a bad joke.

James said...

So, two companies, who of course are working from snow-white motives -- Google is "open", they tell us over and over -- are trying to legislate with power and money. That's evil, Google, and you are definitely losing your way.

Wireless is the same thing as wired. No difference. Data is data is data.

Russ said...

--
Importantly, this new nondiscrimination principle includes a presumption against prioritization of Internet traffic - including paid prioritization.
--

One interpretation would mean that Google, which now is a broadband provider, would not be able to do their own paid-for ad-based links at the top of your search results.

M said...

Google finally reveals its true colors. Do no evil? Yeah, right. Partnering with Verizon to back a qualified net neutrality that isn't net neutrality at all.

James said...

Some people, particularly fandroids, seem to adore Google as "open" and "free." It's true, they have been that way, but you can sense that beginning to change when their own bottom line starts getting fat and lazy. Then, why not cut a deal with the Chinese? Why not cut a deal with Verizon to favor Android phones? They're just another giant corporation with the interests of their own bottom line. That's why this private rule-making sucks so hard. It is OUR bandwidth. We pay, and you to sell it to us. Then it's OURS.

I agree: nationalize bandwidth! Cell phone operators should be required to be common carriers, period. Take my message and deliver it. Without a warrant, get your fat nose out of my business. I'll decide which phone I want. Get out of our hair and just transmit. Innovation? Ha! Like the Wall Street "innovation" in mortgages and so on?

MJF said...

It does sound a little evil, big G. The "compromise" seems to be "well, the rules only apply to the *wired* internet. If the internet is wireless, then the big V can do whatever. Oh, and if the "online services" are "new" then they can do whatever they want too.

Sounds to me like "we won't mess up what is now, but in the future, we can do whatever we feel like". Very disappointing.

I don't really see what you were compromising about; you are all pious about "open" but don't ever give an argument for being somewhat closed. I guess implied is "Verizon wants closed" or "Google wants closed" or both.

Color this faithful Google backer very very suspicious.

medaglia said...

Isn't it incredible that many people that commented here didn't really understand what was written in the document?

Here is the explanation: this document was written to trick people into thinking Google is awesome for protecting the Internet, but the catch is at the end: we will protect everything, EXCEPT for wireless Internet.

Random Signal Generator said...

The allegations of hypocrisy arise mostly from their championing of non-discrimination and transparency, while simultaneously including the caveat of ‘additional online services’: “A broadband provider could offer additional services that could include traffic prioritization.”

They claim the proposal includes safeguards to ensure such services are distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband service, and not designed to circumvent the rules. But what’s to keep the ISPs from reducing speeds for regular broadband plans and offer faster service for video/gaming at higher prices?

Mobile internet users still stay screwed, a.k.a. the compromise to pass Net Neutrality.

Apart from that, there’s the one giant hilarious finger to Comcast: “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.”

So, more power (and case-by-case enforcement work) for FCC and less to other regulators. For now, this policy *proposal* is just that: (a series of) pipe dreams.

akuckartz said...

In other words:

1. Google wants to abolish net neutrality.

2. Google lied last week.

Berkiye said...

It all boils down to money not the health of the internet. Verizon is only concerned about how they can make more money from an ever-expanding market. Google, bedding with the devil?

eliot1785 said...

The only reason that you want a "principled agreement" with Verizon on a structure for the entire Internet is to make sure that your own corporate self-interest is protected. You even admit that it will slow the development of the Internet because you exclude the more rapidly-developing mobile Internet from your agreement. The massive gray areas in this statement will require regulation and litigation to resolve, which will ultimately favor the big players -- I think this is basically the opposite of what made the Internet great.

Michael said...

Repellent. Self-serving. Nauseatingly hypocritical. here's news: Google <> "The Internet."

James said...

"I believe that Google's reasoning to not regulate wireless is an initial proposal so as to not allow government bureaucracies to hinder the growth potential of the wireless industry."

Now, why exactly would you believe that? We've got the worst wireless networks in the world, because each has been allowed to "innovate" to the point where they're basically subsidizing handsets to entice us into long slavery in one or the other incompatible networks. It's like the early days of the railroad, where multiple gauges made the system slow and inefficient. Only when the government imposed a single gauge, and made laws for the hauling of common traffic, was the continental railroad system born.

How about GSM for all? One standard for LTE or 4G? Then require whichever tower is closest to pick up the signal and pass it on to the owner's chosen company -- and charge the company with the fewest towers, to force them to build more towers?

Oh, I know, we have the BEST SYSTEM in the WORLD, except for all the other places where the governments had the balls to tell their wireless companies what the deal was.

James said...

It's terribly clear why Google wants this: they want special treatment for their Google phones. See, it was great when all Google did was find things for us. Then gmail and a lot of their web apps were good, and you didn't mind the ads for the service you were getting.

Tell me they'll make LESS money on wireless if they set things up for themselves this way, and I might believe you.

Bill said...

I really wish people would actually read this (and make sure they actually understand...) before commenting.

Specifically, in point five, it's like people got bored halfway through and just skipped : "Our proposal also includes safeguards to ensure that such online services must be distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules. The FCC would also monitor the development of these services to make sure they don’t interfere with the continued development of Internet access services."

And then on six.
Yeah, it sucks they didn't include wireless (yet) but they did have this line which people seem to forget: "In addition, the Government Accountability Office would be required to report to Congress annually on developments in the wireless broadband marketplace, and whether or not current policies are working to protect consumers."

Come on guys! Reading comprehension!


Kent Brockman:
Professor, without knowing precisely what the danger is, would you say it's time for our viewers to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?

I_wonder said...

I wonder how many of you who are saying "Awesome!" or "Go Google!" are either bots or paid supporters of either Google or Verizon's agendas.

Vic said...

Pricing tiers. 'Nuff said. What a crock of shit.

My respect for Google tanked. I've always suspected Verizon.

SPK said...

This is great, I hope my country (Mexico) takes this as an example.

Bryan said...

There is NO SUCH THING as the "wireless internet". There is only the internet, and it is independent of the delivery system. To differentiate the two is disingenuous and sets a troubling precedent.

Carlos Oliveira said...

"The Google-Verizon pact isn't just as bad as we feared — it's much worse. They are attacking the Internet while claiming to preserve it. Google users won't be fooled.

"They are promising Net Neutrality only for a certain part of the Internet, one that they'll likely stop investing in. But they are also paving the way for a new 'Internet' via fiber and wireless phones where Net Neutrality will not apply and corporations can pick and choose which sites people can easily view on their phones or any other Internet device using these networks.

"It would open the door to outright blocking of applications, just as Comcast did with BitTorrent, or the blocking of content, just as Verizon did with text messages from NARAL Pro-choice America. It would divide the information superhighway, creating new private fast..."

http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-law-features/51006-google-and-verizon-outline-net-neutrality-roadmap

Vic said...

I agree with you Bryan. The statements are disingenuous.

There's also this statement: "Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today. This means that broadband providers can work with other players to develop new services. It is too soon to predict how these new services will develop, but examples might include health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options. Our proposal also includes safeguards to ensure that such online services must be distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules."

This is the beginning of a tiered system, that like cable, seeks to offer so called "extra services" that will be unavailable to those just surfing the net.

Rafael & Kathryn said...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-aaron/google-verizon-pact-it-ge_b_676194.html

Pote said...

:/

The Electoral College said...

this is fukcing ridiculous. everyone posting here that believes their blog or their favorite websites will continue to be the same AND champions this move by google needs to re-read that public statement and then read this. http://tiny.cc/qrdff

this is a violation of our first amendment right to free speech and freedom of assembly. fight this for your lives, bloggers.

The Electoral College said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
techstartup said...

Typical sickening Orwellian doublespeak from corporate giants. Leave out wireless? This is the same nonsense that the telecom corporations did to enable them to skirt the wireline regulations (by classifying their internet activities as "information delivery" rather than telecommunications)...which lead to unfair market practices such as locking devices to certain networks.

Don't be fooled by all the fluffy talk about Googizon supporting net neutrality on legacy broadband networks...THIS IS A MONEY GRAB FOR THE WIRELESS FUTURE OF THE INTERNET.

I'm sick to my stomach.

Long Time said...

In other words, Google is saying that Verizon and other wireless providers should operate without being subject to net neutrality but Comcast and the other wired ones should be subject to it. I guess their "do no evil" thing went right out the door the moment they realized they could make money off us after we staring buying Android phones in earnest. We caught them in a huge lie and now they are trying to frame this as if they are keeping to their oft trumpeted credo. What they are suggesting is not net neutrality. It sounds like a complete 180 from what they have been advocating. This is very unfortunate - for Google, Verizon and anyone else that decides to join them on this, that is.

We're the ones that helped make them who they are. They owe us a satisfactory explanation regarding their policy shift immediately. If Google is not forthcoming with one or if they refuse to back net neutrality regardless of the transmission medium then we should start a multi-pronged protest. Abandon as many of their services as possible and blacklist their ad servers - which would disable their ability to display ads on your computer - until they realize the error of their ways.

Cu said...

This is worse than a fraud. It's a total landgrab to take the internet and put it in the hands of a few companies, who can reduce bandwidth for content they disagree with (like this message) to 110 baud speeds again, while claiming ownership of the bandwidth that actually belongs to the public.

That Google is engaged in this doubletalk simply proves that it is now as honest as the government in 1984.

Rian Fowler said...

This is why countries like Japan are light years ahead of us on wireless broadband.

Guess what, morons: transmitters should never be allowed to discriminate against the content they're trafficking. It doesn't matter if you're doing it over a wire, over the air or through quantum entangled particles: YOU'RE STILL A TRANSMITTER and you're not allowed to discriminate the content that you're trafficking.

Instead of forcing companies like Comcast and Verizon to focus on making their products competitive by increasing the speed and accessibility of their services, you allow them to set up switches to block and slow down content. So while the US gets left in the dust on wired & wireless broadband speeds, these fat cats sit on their butts making money off of DOING FREAKING NOTHING.

You make me sick, Google.

Tricky said...

some you idiots need to learn to read...it does state transparency requirements for BOTH wirless and wired. regardless, this isn't terrible, and it would happen regardless of us bitching about it.

Dave said...

From Twitter last week: "We've not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet."

So Google lied last week, and now wants me to believe what it said above?

I guess Evil doesn't include making extra billions. From Verizon, this is expected. From Google, I should have expected it I suppose after the fold in China.

Wall Street didn't work absent regulation leading the the current economy. We've seen what happened when BP called the shots on safety. Anyone really think that Google and Verizon have our, versus their stock holders's, interests at heart?

aidan_short said...

This is deeply disappointing.

Really, really disappointing.

Items 5 and 6 are Google's sellout.

I guess it was naive to imagine that Google *genuinely* stood for net neutrality for the public benefit.

idiompost said...

Google just became EVIL and therefore the enemy. I am done and will end all my accounts by months end. Fu*k you Google, you should be ashamed bending over taking it for Americorp

Gary P. Hat said...

BOOOO!!!
SO who owns the internet?
GOOGLE GOING EVIL!!!

idiompost said...

People who say this is good do not understand what is going on, "prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content,
application,"
Someone did an illegal file transfer there goes bit torrent and access to any site involved. Oh insert used a copyrighted video ban access have fun,

The day the internet died........

Sparks said...

So is the differentiation for "wired" and "wireless" the final delivery method (what plugs into the consumer's box) or how its transferred.

Like, what about wireless broadband home internet?

Could ISPs circumvent the openness rule by selling modems which only allow wireless access?

Charles Miller said...

It is reassuring to hear that the foxes are guarding the henhouse so diligently.

Rena said...

Goodbye Google (Gmail, Blogger, Docs, Sites, Picasa, etc) It was nice knowing you, before you stank.

treaty said...

Wolf in sheep's clothing Google - come on. An "open Internet" does not mean the creation of a second closed network. It's a straw man argument. You would have the Internet end up bifurcated like broadcast television is today? A model where "free broadcast television" is available - but only if you can get the signal, and only if you want to watch less than a hand full of channels providing irrelevant content. If you want the full world of entertainment, cough up for cable television - and pay the only monopoly offering it in your particular location whatever they feel like charging you.

This is just another framework for corporations to screw the population - don't fall for it people.

Sergio Romano said...

Can we break copyright on wireless networks? You know, as they are different...

I'm happy that Google did not exist when TCP/IP was designed.

Who will be the next not evil company? I guess we all realize Google is already evil (but not in wireline)

Steve said...

This is a corporate take over of the net. By bifurcating the access to the highest bidder vs the public interest you have screwed all of us who have supported your "DO NO EVIL" in the past. This is merely a ploy for you and Verizon to muscle out the less financially endowed competition.

rockskin said...

What will this do to Browser based On line banking applications

Action Dan said...

Dear Google,

I was raised on the Internet, and am far from blind: I have seen the contradiction in your action and your words. You talk of net-neutrality, yet pose laws that would let allow ISP's to prioritize "private networks" over the internet. You attempt to 'appease the people' by offering us this quick fix, when you leave the future grey and open to interpretation (Wireless is thier projected goal, with Verizon offering 'wireless network cards' and google selling 'Chrome Web-books'). What ever happened to secure by design? What ever happened to doing it right from the very begining? Either way, I doubt I will pursuade you; Just understand, your actions will define you for all history, not what you say or claim in your advertising. The truth will come out with time, so make the right decision now or let history forever show the repercussions of your actions.

MLH said...

So you lied about not being in talks with VZ, and your proposal to carve wireless, where the growth is in connectivity, out of net neutrality principles basically means that you want the parts of the Internet that are growing most rapidly to be up for corporate bid.

Shame on you Google. I don't know why, but I expected better from you.

Bill T said...

This is terrible. Let me translate this: We want an open internet except when it is more profitable not to have an open internet. How exactly is wireless access different than wired? What is "differentiated online services" and why should data packets for those services get treated differently? There are so many loopholes in this policy that it is rendered useless. All data packets, regardless of source or destination, should be treated equally. How hard is it to grasp that concept? It has worked well so far.

David said...

3) connecting their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network or service, facilitate theft of service, or harm other users of the service,

The phrase "facilitate theft of service," is so vague that it could be interpreted as just being in competition with the carrier's own provided services e.g. voice,SMS, video etc.

This statement puts the Internet in the USA back into the pre-dialup days before the split up of AT&T, where the carrier could effectively deny access to any modem because it could "harm the network" or just compete with its existing services.

Robert said...

you fucking suck google, I hope you go down in flames

S said...

Sorry, nobody I know buys your lies. You lied last last week on the subject and you keep on lying, anybody with a brain understand this self evident truth.

Obviously I'll give up using any service you provide if any of these proposals are approved and if there'll be mobs with pitchforks and torches in Mountain View I'll manage to be there and give my humble contribution :D

jordan mack said...

Google goes EVIL.

Support Wikileaks!
This is an attempt to censor free speech!

If you love the internet you know DO NOT SUPPORT THIS:
http://pol.moveon.org/google/index.html

Seth said...

Differentiated Internet services? No Net neutrality applying to wireless Internet? Shame on you, Google. So much for not being evil.

Jeff said...

The rest of the world is moving towards convergence: cable TV going away and video being hosted on a single pipe, and Google is proposing carving it up again?

Google isn't leaving the current internet alone, they're trying to leave it *BEHIND*, so they, along with Verizon, can set their own rules and agenda.

They want to run so fast and far ahead that the FCC won't ever be able to catch up.

MLH said...

@rockskin

Under Google/VZ's proposal, it would be perfectly acceptable for your bank to cut a deal with a wireless carrier as their 'exclusive provider of wireless banking services' and for them to moreover charge you a fee for the privilege (on top of your regular data fees and contractual lock-in). Don't like it? Too bad. Maybe Congress will take note of it in its periodic reviews and suggest some remediation. As if.

S said...

p.s.
I hope Johnathan Postel's spirit will enter your dreams and turn them in nightmares, as you're trying to do with OUR (not yours)internet

cruthas said...

What a bunch of crap! Here comes the global google takeover. There was a time when I thought google was made of something respectable. Now the true colors have shown, google = we want your $$$$. Thanks for ruining the best thing that has come to small business! Way to lock out the little man! This is despicable! I spit on your shinny classy shoes!

flurb said...

I'm done. Google is no longer my search engine of choice.

Mothball said...

Shame on you Google. Have you forgot you first commandment, DON'T BE EVIL?

this is the sort of thing i expect from Microsoft or Apple but you Google proposing this, i am completely disappointed in you actions. First you lied to the public when you said you were not talking to Verizon. Spin it how you want but its still a lie. Second, net neutrality is fundamental to the internet's ability to drive innovation and competition - it ensures the level playing field on which ideas succeed based on merit and value and not who or what paid for access. Are you telling us that you have run out of fresh ideas and innovations so you are now going to circle the wagons and protect yourself from competition?

you have chosen the coward's path and i am truly disappointed.

Tuta said...

This is the beginning of the end for Google.

Interesting how their actions are starting to resemble Microsoft in the late 1990's

The irony is that this kind of hubris always leads to downfall, it is just a matter of time.

Albert said...

This is 100% Buuuuuuullshit! Shame on you Goooooooogle.

Albert said...

This is 100% Buuuuuuullshit! Shame on you Goooooooogle.

Albert said...

BS

Le said...

$$$

slashkun said...

I don't give a rat's a55 what the medium is over which the traffic is transmitted. The internet, is the internet, is the internet. Wireless or wired it doesn't matter. I've been feeling that google is evil for some time now. When they did what they did with Yelp, served to confirm it a bit, now this. This is the final nail in the Google coffin for me. I will be changing my home/search page, and I will never, _ever_ purchase a google supported phone or services. Screw Google, as far as I am concerned.

Robert said...

Bits is bits, that's all you need to regulate on the internet. You don't need a lot of tiers and special services. It all goes in one end and comes out the other no matter whether it's a bit for a movie or a bit for a spreadsheet. It's all the same to the machines. This proposal isn't needed and just obfuscates the simplicity of net neutrality.

Cameron Toth said...

By not protecting transparency for wireless how are you protecting consumers? Was that a typo? Because that does not pass the smell test.

Paul said...

a layered internet? yet still open to all? what bullsh*t. If there's one thing we are taught time and time again, it's that these guys are for only one thing - putting a price on everything. Google is crossing a line here

Gordon said...

This provision is highly questionable:

"ensure that consumers have access to all legal content on the Internet"

It appears to allow censorship. Would whistleblowers be censored? Would Ellsberg's Pentagon Papers have been censored. We know that "classified" can often mean embarrassing or cover-up of crimes.

i'm the bipolar bear said...

shame on you.

time to delete chrome and stop using google services.

you have permanently lost the trust of millions. hope selling out was worth it.

sheri said...

Shame on Google, you were for net neutrality before you were against it.

Mike Marcucio said...

Google is all done.. they are no longer have the Google values they once had.

JackLord said...

And you have ignorant commenters that think it is awesome.
ISPs want to restrict our freedom to surf wherever we want and Google, afraid to get hurt, decides to negotiate and side with them.

There is no alternative to these vampires, since they organize in cartels. You go along with this crap or you quit the Internet.

Ben Gutierrez said...

It's clear to me that this proposal is the product of a lot of thought and hard work from a lot of people. It addresses concerns held by all parties involved and it looks like it could benefit us all.

I'm looking forward to learning more. Good luck moving this forward!

- -Scott Meschke said...

shame google.

obviously the future is in wireless.. wired internet may not even be around in 30 years.

Alexander said...

Sickening. I have read your proposal in full and done all relevant reading and research. I can only explain the outrageous wireless transparency copout in the light of profit. Google has sullied its moral past with this absurd decision, and stands to lose the trust of many. As a user and citizen, I am deeply disappointed.

c-c-c-combo breakerrr said...

WTF google? Stop ruining the fucking internet.

J said...

This issue is every bit as important as freedom of speech. Comprising principals is a slippery slope and it only goes one way. Our founders knew that and you know that. At least have common decency to admit what you are doing rather than dress it up as helping people and innovation (it would actually do the opposite, which has been proven time and time again). Just like with China censorship you've shown yourself to be dishonest cowards.

OliverRHutton said...

Google you better fix this, or you'll lose me forever! The internet is the internet. Don't sell out!

John said...

It's about time. Let's move the Internet forward and get end to end quality of service and a true DiffServ model. I want my quality video conferencing, I want lag free gaming, I want quality VoIP.

Time to move The Internet into the future and stop all the best effort delivery which really means crappy delivery for all applications.

sjsnay said...

Here's the problem with having a company as big as Google: They're very difficult to boycott when they screw users over like this. But you can be I'm gonna try.

So long pointless YouTube videos, Google Search (I've been enjoying Bing lately anyway), and Android phone (iPhone 4 has been seriously drawing my attention lately...I mean, wow, it's hot).

Peace out Google. Way to screw over all of the little people who put you in the position you're in now.

Robert said...

I specifically categorizes protected content as 'lawful.'

-Does this mean that unlawful content will be unavailable/inhibited?
-What will be defined as unlawful content?
-Who will decide what is unlawful content?
-How will unlawful content be regulated aside lawful content, as in will the an ISP block certain sites or ports, or perhaps the ISP/FCC will monitor communications??

These are serious questions which I would like answered BEFORE this is given vote in congress.

If the open internet is designed for the consumer, then let the consumer decide how it works. We are not children who need their parents to make decisions for them!!

Joseph said...

This is a terrible plan. You disgust me.

Rick Dalley said...

This is wrong and you know it. I have removed anything Google that I had, including your search engine, and am encouraging everyone I know to do the same.

Rob said...

This is B.S.... Neutrality is neutrality, there is no "compromise" about it. Networks, wired and not wired should be equal for all regardless if you are a major corporation or an entrepreneur with a new idea.

Pedro said...

Yhea, I think an hybrid market, where the openess and principles of the Internet are preserved and a stack of aditional proprietary services offered by providers could work well.

If we think about it, it's the case of the open-source vs proprietary software ecosystem.

Thanks Google for not being evil.

s said...

Google and Verizon, you disgusting pigs. You are already insanely wealthy. Why must you rob from the poor to give to the rich? This is about fair access to information and information is a right that all humans deserve. Finland progresses, America drives itself into the ground. To say this is a step in the right direction for net neutrality is like saying black is white. Anyone who thinks this is a good thing for any American or human is a tool of those companies, and is likely paid by one of these companies. If this deal happens I will destroy my HTC Evo and delete my google accounts. Coincidentally, google is planning on getting into the ISP business. What a surprise. Evil is as evil does.

WhyDoesItMatter said...

Sad, disgusting, self serving. So NOT the Google I used to admire. I'd expect this from Verizon or Microsoft>>>

rob47 said...

I am cancelling my Verizon account, deleting my gmail account, and will use yahoo for searches from now on.
I doubt that will get the attention of these giants...maybe if millions of us do?!
"Don't be evil" indeed!!!!

Daren said...

The Additional Online Services section allows a two-tiered internet. A free and open internet that will languish with no new investments and new, closed and private internet that will cost more.

Why shouldn't wireless be included? When the internet first started it was free and open yet wired broadband succeeded so why I am I supposed to think that a free and open internet would be bad for wireless broadband?

A free and open internet allows everyone, know matter their size, to start a business on the internet. It is what brought us Google and YouTube and so many other great services. Why shouldn't those same free market principles apply to wireless internet?

By making wireless internet closed and private you prevent the small company who can't strike a mutli-million dollar deal with a wireless company from competing on a level playing field with multi-national, giant corporations.

This deal, if accepted by the FCC, would kill Net Neutrality and it spells the end of love-affair with Google.

Hello Bing.

PS. Wonder if this comment will be allowed to stay?

techstartup said...

I can only hope that organizations who fight for the public interest and against this kind of corporate depravity are up to the task of blocking this insanity - the scumbag lobbyists have been slithering around in washington for a long time on this one, so they are well versed and well funded to grease the palms of those in government who care little about the public interest.

I'm sure the arrogant a**holes at google are largely laughing at the public outrage, figuring they can handle the PR hit..but I personally have signed every petition I could find today, sent letters to my congressmen, have switched my default search engine away from google, and have begun to execute a plan (which was already in the works) to migrate all of my clients away from google apps.

There's only so much any of us can do as the little guy, but I implore that anyone reading this do whatever you can to cut google out of your life, and let the FCC know how you feel: http://bit.ly/bnIHlU

The intelligence insulting hubris of google's "statement" is a friggin joke, and since I see that Big Brother deleted the original post that pointed to an important summary of this topic, here it is again: http://huff.to/9wXiy6 ...get it while it's still here, and spread it around - people need to understand this issue, beyond the googizon spin...

Keith said...

The internet is the internet, whether it comes through copper wires, fiber, or the (public) airwaves. Either you support net neutrality, or you don't.

Maybe I was a little naive, but I honestly expected better out of Google.

John & Kim said...

It sounds like you are throwing us a bone on the neutrality thing. Why? Because you and Verizon (who is at its endgame for wired internet) knows the future is in wireless devices such as iPads/Android/etc. So, you're hedging your bets that this will happen so you CAN regulate content. Basically, you know the wired internet is going away, so you're setting yourself up all nice and fancy while we watch the wired internet die a slow death. Verizon benefits from the wireless content control, YOU benefit with your Android OS. Also, Verizon benefits from getting to create a new internet without pesky competition for its high bandwidth content. And YOU get to have a piece of that yummy "parallel internet" pie with your innovative services.

Today I, and millions of others, switched to Bing, and you know? It ain't half bad.

googol1000 said...

The proposals here should apply to wireless as well. The reason we are at this point requiring such legislation is because there were no "net neutrality" policies or regulations for wire-lines since the beginning. I don't see the reasoning behind not including wireless as part of the proposals. Wireless is the future, especially considering the explosive growth of google's android and apple's iphone. The smartphone growth is just starting and now would be a good time to put in these proposals for wireless as well.

shinzon said...

I'm very, very disappointed that you lied when you denied negotiations, and that you've betrayed net neutrality.

Wisco said...

Net neutrality is awesome -- except for wireless, then it's bad.

The logic here escapes me. Typical corporate weasel words and doubletalk.

American Shaolin said...

We need an Internet Bill of Rights.

Google can't propose it, the people must.

I found a start:

Privacy, data protection, freedom of expression, universal accessibility, network neutrability, interoperability, use of format and open standards, free access to information and knowledge, right to innovation and a fair and competitive market and consumers safeguard.

Chris said...

I will be deleting my Google acct, and have already changed my default search engine to Yahoo. I don't currently have Verizon Wireless service, and plan on keeping it that way.

I will start spreading the word to friends tonight that if they are considering an Android phone, they should look elsewhere.

Chris said...

PS I created this account just to post this, as I had previously deleted my other.

Not sure why Google wants to wage war on consumers, but let the chips fall where they may.

Jerks.

ljvillanueva said...

Net Neutrality on a second-class Internet, while you get all the speed you want on a new pipe?! Thanks Google for disappointing all of us.
We all knew that motto of "Do no evil" would not last under the pressure of more money. A sad day for the net...

Calheta dos Biscoitos said...

I started using Google, email and other services, because of their position on China. Now I feel that their "grand designs" are not much different from Beijing.
Perception is the name of the game. And based on that, I am done with Google. I am going to look for, and support, an alternative to Google... until...that's life...that 'alternative' goes down the same road as Google.

garman11 said...

It is far past time for the internet to be regulated as a Public Utility. I know under current law this is not allowed so it must be time to change the law. All forms of internet including wireless must have the same regulations.

Google, you have screwed the pooch on this one and you will pay dearly.

You have lost me as a user and I will persuade 10 other people who will each persuade 10 more people and so on.

Marty Desilets said...

Complete garbage -- the ONLY thing this does is give Googizon more control. Right now? The internet is a river. This? Is a DAM. They control the flow.

Keith said...

You lying corporate fucktards. Guess who's switching to Bing or Yahoo or some BETTER search engine? Me and millions of others.

stacius said...

Google and Verizon are basically expecting us to just 'trust you'. When has that ever worked for consumer benefit.

The internet was paid for by public dollars. It's explosion is not solely due to large corporations (which were often late to the party) but to the efforts everyday citizens.

Now you want to throw up walls and charge more for 'services'. Well, I call bullshit on you, Google...

Chris said...

I have a GREAT idea! If we would like to send a STRONG message to Google, I suggest that everyone unhappy with Googles little deal with the devil, do a google search for:

"Google is evil"

And tell ALL your friends to join in.

s said...

This is NOT good. Just read the proposed framework starting with Network Management....says it all. Hope everyone likes intensive traffic shaping/QOS (not to mention port blocking) on any site who's not on their diamond list.

XAg said...

Shame shame......

Cable Green said...

The FCC Commissioner's statement is right on the money - well said:

STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS
ON VERIZON-GOOGLE ANNOUNCEMENT

“Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward. That’s one of its
many problems. It is time to move a decision forward—a decision to reassert FCC authority
over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever, and to put
the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations.”
- FCC -

Team said...

Shame on you, Google; for you just turned evil!

piratekingdan said...

Come on, Google. You guys have been my favorite company forever. I loved that you were all about an open, free Internet.

Wireless is a different market, but it's the first step in the wrong direction. If you start with this crap, how long before other companies step in to do the same to wired?

I'm a G1 user. My Google account is directly tied to my life. I've been with you the whole time. I beta tested Gmail, Wave, and Talk. This is the first time when I can strongly say you're doing something really, really wrong. Keep your PR image of being awesome and drop this. For the future of the Internet.

CS-SIS-competencies said...

So much for "Don't be evil". It is sad that the first time you have a real financial stake in messing with infrastructure (wireless in this case), you toss your principles right out the window.

I'm sure you will be able to buy this from Congress and the FCC, but it is sad.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 502   Newer› Newest»