5 ms·

> Maybe someone can help me understand the distinction between these two. Verizon is the pipe we move data over - it's the road. "Google" is the service at the

by awalton 10y ago

> Maybe someone can help me understand the distinction between these two. Verizon is the pipe we move data over - it's the road. "Google" is the service at the other end of the pipe - it's our destination. Verizon is unhappy with being the pipe, despite that literally being the business they signed up to be in. They have decided that the destinations make more money than they can ever squeeze out of being the road service. So, they hatched a plan... Verizon is now trying to use the fact that we're going to "Google" to instead funnel customers into their destinations - "You don't need "Google", use "Verizoogle" instead!" Verizon also wants to install toll lanes on their roads such that even using "Google" proper costs you extra. And it costs "Google" extra too, because why only charge in one direction? Still going to stare blankly and refuse to see the problem?

toomuchtodo 10y ago
> Still going to stare blankly and refuse to see the problem? The problem isn't Verizon; the problem is voters who allow their representatives to remain in office without passing legislation to fix this. Don't blame corporations for working within the system they're presented. Blame an apathetic voter base.
- ant6n 10y ago
  So companies cannot be responsible for anything, it's the laws! Oh and of course the law makers aren't responsible for anything, it's the voters! Very convenient, especially given how the dysfunctional US electoral system means voting for change isn't possible.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- awalton 10y ago
  > Don't blame corporations for working within the system they're presented. Blame an apathetic voter base. I can blame both. Ethical companies will not abuse a bad law, nor will they pay millions to lobby to break laws, or use the Citizen's United ruling to pour money into electing people who will pass laws they want. It's hard to even see how it is possible to vote against them now that they've got billions of dollars to make any decision they see fit law, simply by squeezing the arm of whichever tool they installed in the legislator. But maybe we should blame the Supreme Court - if only that too wasn't gamed by politicians baselessly denying the nomination of first Garland and now Gorsuch as retaliation. Corruption is corruption, whether it is political or commercial.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    There's plenty of blame to go around. Pick a political target, and sink your teeth into it, whether that's data privacy, immigration rights, single payer, whatever. Pick a candidate running for office who is congruent with your values, support them mercilessly, move on to the next challenge after the election. Squabbling on Hacker News? Does zero. Let's get something done.
    - itchyjunk 10y ago
      Only it does. Part of making informed decision is being informed. You assume what you say by default is best course of action and there is no need to discuss it any further. If it were, there would be no need to ask for the mobilization. Somewhere in the comment section someone says they only recently realized these problems by being exposed to it through HN.
rayiner 10y ago
But Google isn't the destination. Google's top services (search and YouTube) are just means for finding and getting to what we really want, which is the content (website, video, etc.).
- joshuamorton 10y ago
  Would you say the same thing about Netflix? It is just a means for finding and getting content, much of which is made by external entities.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Netflix makes a lot of its own content. But outside that capacity, it's just a middle man. My four year old uses Hulu, Netflix, iTunes, and the PBS app. They're fungible.
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  Ok, so google is the map maker, Verizon is the road, and whatever website/information the user really wants is the physical location. It is still understandable that there can be bigger margins in map making than there is in laying asphalt.
- pixl97 10y ago
  Eh, Youtube is a Google destination. Lots of people make content for the express purpose of distribution on Youtube. Those people could put the content on other services, but they would likely have lower viewership. So, I'd say you're wrong on that. Google is the destination. About search. You don't have to use it. You could go straight to the content producers website if you wanted. Chances are nobody would ever find that content. As a means to fund the search, Google presents ads. Your ISP is another matter. You pay the ISP for the pipe. The ISP also lobbies your local municipality for monopoly service. They also want to sample your pipe and sell your data that you are paying them to carry for you. Everything needs to go encrypted. From DNS, all email to all webpages. All the ISP deserves is a bunch of random characters.
  - 10y ago
pcwalton 10y ago
> They have decided that the destinations make more money than they can ever squeeze out of being the road service. You say that as though it's not true.
newsat13 10y ago
Google also started as a search engine to help me find my way to my real destination. Instead it has snuck in and started tracking where I am going, what I am doing there, why I am there and what not. If Google is allowed to change business models radically (and very profitably), why not Verizon. To be clear, I am just pointing out that singling out Verizon/Comcast does not get to the root of the problem. We need blanket laws that cover all companies that mine user data for profit. If there are no laws, well then everybody should be allowed to do whatever they want. Why give this privilege to Google (who also give an unrelated service).
- ajmurmann 10y ago
  Privacy is only one of many problems that arise from ISPs deciding to provide other services. They can easily mess with anyone whose business model uses the Internet. You are right that privacy is a larger problem and we need to get stronger privacy rights. But we also need to strictly enforced that ISPs are only allowed to sell transport of bits to consumers. No selling of content, no selling of priority access for content products or any other shenanigans.
- matt4077 10y ago
  I think the difference boils down to (a) trust and (b) power. Maybe also (c) competence. (a) Many have criticised google over the years, especially it's slogan of "Do no evil". But the fact of the matter remains that, by and large, they have always convinced people with superior services, and been very careful not to through their weight around to force people to do business with them. They may actually be terribly evil, but their interests and those of consumers just happened to be aligned, most of the time. One example: they have never tried to block ad-blocking extensions from chrome, although it those are somewhat threatening to their business model. And despite conspiracy theories saying the opposite, it appears to me as if their search rankings are, to this day, not influenced by ad spending. Providers, on the other hand, have a long history of anticompetitive behaviour and have proven that they are extracting the profits of being dominant whenever they can (proven by the much-better offers that suddenly materialised when Google Fibre came to some cities). (b) Power: I'd argue that even for consumers, it's easier to largely avoid using google, than it is to avoid providers. It's almost a truism if you accept that there is tacit collusion in many areas where only two or three providers exist, i. e. they do not seem to be aggressively competing with each other. Almost more importantly, at least in this crowd, may be how afraid people are of the end of net neutrality. We have all seen how cool ideas (sometimes) managed to grow into something extremely useful (or fun, or beautiful). At least I am horrified of a future where this becomes impossible, because the pipe companies want to extract every penny they can, and they do it by requiring everyone, everywhere to pay them. This isn't about the money. It's about retaining the slightly anarchic dynamism of an internet where a good idea, some technical expertise and $4 for a domain registration may be enough to change the world.

by awalton 10y ago

toomuchtodo 10y ago

> Still going to stare blankly and refuse to see the problem? The problem isn't Verizon; the problem is voters who allow their representatives to remain in office without passing legislation to fix this. Don't blame corporations for working within the system they're presented. Blame an apathetic voter base.

ant6n 10y ago
So companies cannot be responsible for anything, it's the laws! Oh and of course the law makers aren't responsible for anything, it's the voters! Very convenient, especially given how the dysfunctional US electoral system means voting for change isn't possible.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
awalton 10y ago
> Don't blame corporations for working within the system they're presented. Blame an apathetic voter base. I can blame both. Ethical companies will not abuse a bad law, nor will they pay millions to lobby to break laws, or use the Citizen's United ruling to pour money into electing people who will pass laws they want. It's hard to even see how it is possible to vote against them now that they've got billions of dollars to make any decision they see fit law, simply by squeezing the arm of whichever tool they installed in the legislator. But maybe we should blame the Supreme Court - if only that too wasn't gamed by politicians baselessly denying the nomination of first Garland and now Gorsuch as retaliation. Corruption is corruption, whether it is political or commercial.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  There's plenty of blame to go around. Pick a political target, and sink your teeth into it, whether that's data privacy, immigration rights, single payer, whatever. Pick a candidate running for office who is congruent with your values, support them mercilessly, move on to the next challenge after the election. Squabbling on Hacker News? Does zero. Let's get something done.
  - itchyjunk 10y ago
    Only it does. Part of making informed decision is being informed. You assume what you say by default is best course of action and there is no need to discuss it any further. If it were, there would be no need to ask for the mobilization. Somewhere in the comment section someone says they only recently realized these problems by being exposed to it through HN.

rayiner 10y ago

But Google isn't the destination. Google's top services (search and YouTube) are just means for finding and getting to what we really want, which is the content (website, video, etc.).

joshuamorton 10y ago
Would you say the same thing about Netflix? It is just a means for finding and getting content, much of which is made by external entities.
- rayiner 10y ago
  Netflix makes a lot of its own content. But outside that capacity, it's just a middle man. My four year old uses Hulu, Netflix, iTunes, and the PBS app. They're fungible.
oh_sigh 10y ago
Ok, so google is the map maker, Verizon is the road, and whatever website/information the user really wants is the physical location. It is still understandable that there can be bigger margins in map making than there is in laying asphalt.
pixl97 10y ago
Eh, Youtube is a Google destination. Lots of people make content for the express purpose of distribution on Youtube. Those people could put the content on other services, but they would likely have lower viewership. So, I'd say you're wrong on that. Google is the destination. About search. You don't have to use it. You could go straight to the content producers website if you wanted. Chances are nobody would ever find that content. As a means to fund the search, Google presents ads. Your ISP is another matter. You pay the ISP for the pipe. The ISP also lobbies your local municipality for monopoly service. They also want to sample your pipe and sell your data that you are paying them to carry for you. Everything needs to go encrypted. From DNS, all email to all webpages. All the ISP deserves is a bunch of random characters.
- 10y ago

pcwalton 10y ago

> They have decided that the destinations make more money than they can ever squeeze out of being the road service. You say that as though it's not true.

newsat13 10y ago

Google also started as a search engine to help me find my way to my real destination. Instead it has snuck in and started tracking where I am going, what I am doing there, why I am there and what not. If Google is allowed to change business models radically (and very profitably), why not Verizon. To be clear, I am just pointing out that singling out Verizon/Comcast does not get to the root of the problem. We need blanket laws that cover all companies that mine user data for profit. If there are no laws, well then everybody should be allowed to do whatever they want. Why give this privilege to Google (who also give an unrelated service).

ajmurmann 10y ago
Privacy is only one of many problems that arise from ISPs deciding to provide other services. They can easily mess with anyone whose business model uses the Internet. You are right that privacy is a larger problem and we need to get stronger privacy rights. But we also need to strictly enforced that ISPs are only allowed to sell transport of bits to consumers. No selling of content, no selling of priority access for content products or any other shenanigans.
matt4077 10y ago
I think the difference boils down to (a) trust and (b) power. Maybe also (c) competence. (a) Many have criticised google over the years, especially it's slogan of "Do no evil". But the fact of the matter remains that, by and large, they have always convinced people with superior services, and been very careful not to through their weight around to force people to do business with them. They may actually be terribly evil, but their interests and those of consumers just happened to be aligned, most of the time. One example: they have never tried to block ad-blocking extensions from chrome, although it those are somewhat threatening to their business model. And despite conspiracy theories saying the opposite, it appears to me as if their search rankings are, to this day, not influenced by ad spending. Providers, on the other hand, have a long history of anticompetitive behaviour and have proven that they are extracting the profits of being dominant whenever they can (proven by the much-better offers that suddenly materialised when Google Fibre came to some cities). (b) Power: I'd argue that even for consumers, it's easier to largely avoid using google, than it is to avoid providers. It's almost a truism if you accept that there is tacit collusion in many areas where only two or three providers exist, i. e. they do not seem to be aggressively competing with each other. Almost more importantly, at least in this crowd, may be how afraid people are of the end of net neutrality. We have all seen how cool ideas (sometimes) managed to grow into something extremely useful (or fun, or beautiful). At least I am horrified of a future where this becomes impossible, because the pipe companies want to extract every penny they can, and they do it by requiring everyone, everywhere to pay them. This isn't about the money. It's about retaining the slightly anarchic dynamism of an internet where a good idea, some technical expertise and $4 for a domain registration may be enough to change the world.