18 ms·
If Google were actually serious about Net Neutrality, they would use their insane market power to protect it. How? Well, a simple statement saying "any ISP who
by mabbo 9y ago
If Google were actually serious about Net Neutrality, they would use their insane market power to protect it.
How? Well, a simple statement saying "any ISP who abuses net neutrality will have their customers cut off from Google products". No Google search, no YouTube, no Gmail. Have those requests instead redirect to a website telling the customer what their ISP is doing, why Google won't work with them, and how to call to complain to the ISP. Make the site list competitors in the user's area that don't play stupid games.
Is this an insane idea? Yep. Would Google come under scrutiny because of their now-obvious market power? Oh definitely. And Google would probably lose money over it. But it would certainly work.
People don't get internet, and then decide to use Google. They want Google and then get internet for that purpose.
edit: an hour later, fixing an autocorrect word
- gist 9y ago> Well, a simple statement saying "any ISP who abuses net neutrality will have their customers cut off from Google products". No Google search, no YouTube, no Gmail So you are suggesting that they harm their own business interests? For how long exactly?
- lostlogin 9y agoThe problem with this is that the people who Google makes money from often aren't the biggest users, that would be blocking the users rather than the customers. I'm unsure if that matters, it would certainly be a massive wake up call to a lot of people.
- tdb7893 9y agoWouldn't that both be horrible for business and also run them into major anti-trust issues?
- adventured 9y agoIt would instantly bring on the full power of the US Government, which can do almost anything it wants to to a corporation through dozens of nasty approaches. I'm shocked at the naivety in this thread after what we just witnessed with the NSA v tech companies. Suddenly Google is facing a fine 10x larger than what the EU just threw at them (after all, look at the business % ratio regarding markets over the last decade, the majority of their business has been in the US), and a dozen agencies begin pursuing them on a variety of issues. The government can do anything it wants to to Google at any time it wants to do it. They have enough methods, they can make Google's existence absolute hell.
- bnewbold 9y agoTo state the obvious, this proposal is antithetical to the concept of network neutrality. Also, the belief that there would be "competitors in the user's area that don't play stupid games" that offer comparable services (eg, within a factor of 5x bandwidth-per-dollar value) seems to be a misunderstanding of the utility/monopoly/duopoly economics in play in many regions of the USA.
- guelo 9y agoNetwork neutrality means that the network transit is neutral, endpoints such as Google are free to do as they wish. For example Google already blocks youtube videos based on ip address geo region. But I agree that it wouldn't work because the ISP monopolies are more entrenched than the web service monopolies.
- raverbashing 9y agoOf course it is If ISPs don't see the point in it then they can't complain when other don't follow it (and they get the shaft)
- baq 9y ago> To state the obvious, this proposal is antithetical to the concept of network neutrality. the culture employs special circumstances when the situation exceeds the moral capacity of contact. or to put it differently, sometimes outside forces are so strong that you either let your ethics... be flexible for while or just disappear in the annals of history. whether OP's particular action would be effective is a different question - bing, ddg or baidu would gladly jump at the opportunity if this wasn't coordinated.
- ZainRiz 9y agoTherin lie dragons That's how you start thinking it's okay to drop napalm and nuclear bombs on cities since "it'll end the war faster"
- baq 9y agoyes. i've never said i think it's fine, it's just (to me) obvious that it's how some people think and how the world works due to the fact some of those people were given power to rule, or took it themselves.
- mirekrusin 9y agoYes, it would cost them a lot, billions probably, as it would be unconstitutional action. They would be forced to close the shop if they continued. [edit] It could however work if they throttle priority isp traffic to counterbalance.
- sloppycee 9y ago> unconstitutional How? Google is a private individual/company; they can deny anyone service, so long as the reason is not discriminating against a protected class.
- Nomentatus 9y agoor using their market power to extend a monopoly.
- jacksnipe 9y agoNow that Google (or rather, Alphabet) is also an ISP, wouldn't they get in a lot of trouble for this? Seems anti-competitive.
- jacksnipe 9y agoNow that Google (or rather, Alphabet) is also an ISP, wouldn't they get in a lot of trouble for this? Seems anti-competitive.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- elorant 9y agoSo if you're a customer of said companies tied with a long-term contract you'd be caught in the middle and fucked up beyond recognition. How on earth would something like that make things better?
- krath94 9y ago"Yeah we're gonna teach them that censorship is wrong by censoring people!!!"
- AdamJacobMuller 9y agoSadly, irony like that is lost on a lot of people these days.
- kingbirdy 9y agoBut they'd just be censoring themselves
- reitanqild 9y agoYep. That was the point I guess. Sometimes it seems easier to communicate something by stating the opposite and let people work out themselves why this is a bad idea.
- fuckthissite 9y agowork out. oh you sad fuck
- yellowapple 9y agoWelcome to Hacker News!
- komali2 9y agoI love this idea because I read too much cyberpunk. Why doesn't Twitter flex its muscle and cause a national crisis by tweeting "watch out China, nukes are coming" from Donald Trump's Twitter? That ruins trust in the platform, but what if they just banned the US president's account for TOS or something? Enormous amount of power. What if Musk's first ship to Mars had a hidden Railgun on it? "Anybody else that wants to come to Mars must pay equivalent US 100,000 million per vehicle." Alternatively, "I now own mars, who can come as well is up to my whim." What if Microsoft issued a malicious patch that gave it access to the NSA's servers? What if Comcast slurped up FBI traffic? In the internet and space age, corporations are getting enough real power that government power can be outright stepped over. Sure, say Comcast slurps data somehow from CIA and FBI, goes to prez, and says "give us x or we sell this to Russia," the US gov can turn around and threaten to arrest the CEO, or fine them, or kick down doors and start tearing apart infrastructure with the US military, but Comcast could easily say "do any of the above and the data is given to Russia, for free." Musk has weaponised Mars, a state actor says "unweaponise it or be hanged," Musk can say "well, the cannon is automated, has 300 rounds of ammunition, and will not deactivate unless my secret passcode and the secret passcode of another person who I will not name, are provided. Per detected vehicle." Etc. Exciting, fun, terrifying. It can go fantastic for us (Google and Netflix telling telecoms to suck it), or absolutely horrifying (Comcast holding the US government hostage).
- adventured 9y ago> but what if they just banned the US president's account for TOS or something Because the US Government has terrifying amounts of power and can be very spiteful. Their ability to easily intimidate corporations has been demonstrated time and time again. See: NSA v tech, Qwest, broad anti-trust powers (which have nothing to do with monopoly and everything to do with subjective definitions), SEC, FTC, FCC, national security powers, executive orders, and the list goes for days.
- BinaryIdiot 9y agoI think parent's overall point is that the private sector has amassed quite a lot of power that could overstep / bypass the government entirely. It's not outside the realm of possibility that a team of rogue people in one or more social companies could literally trigger a war or worse. It wasn't about one specific, small example but the big picture. Since these companies care about profit and the people running the companies likely care about their lives I'd imagine much of this wouldn't ever happen but it's all technically possible which, compared to where we were say 20 years ago, is just absolutely amazing in every sense of the word.
- acomjean 9y agoI like it. If you've ever experienced the not too occasional fighting between cable companies and some of the networks they carry, it can get ugly. With both sides claiming they're in the right. Sometimes the channels even go off the air because the cable company won't pay what the networks want. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carriage_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carriage_dispute The only problem is if say google pulls YouTube from comcast, its not like customers have a plethora of other internet providers to choose from, so they suffer.
- cwkoss 9y agoWould be better to not block, but show a 30 second video explaining why comcast sucks before each video. If you're blocked, you'll only see the message once. If you have to watch a video before instead, you'll get angrier and angrier each time.
- ygaf 9y agoDon't preach to users that $ISP is bad, just tie the inconvenience in to lack of net neutrality.
- bogomipz 9y agoUsing regular folks who are already a captive audience, as foot soldiers against big telecom is not very efficient and probably a non-starter from a PR perspective. What is the net result of this? People call up and complain to their ISP? Complaining hasn't worked yet and that's the problem. You can complain all you want but when there's no competition it doesn't matter. A far better idea in my opinion would be for Google to spend money and muscle in partnering to provide municipal broadband. If people had a choice between a municipal broadband provider that preserved net-neutrality or choosing the existing duopoly that wants to "rent seek" then I think the net-neutrality issue might finally be able to be put to rest. There are some case studies in successful municipal broadband deployments here: http://www.bbpmag.com/snapshot/snap0612.php http://www.bbpmag.com/snapshot/snap0612.php Google is already partnering with NYC via Sidewalk Labs. See: https://sidewalklabs.com/about/ https://sidewalklabs.com/about/ and LinkNYC is already up and running, so its not much of a stretch: http://screenmediadaily.com/citybridge-to-launch-linknyc-largest-urban-digital-ad-network/ http://screenmediadaily.com/citybridge-to-launch-linknyc-lar...
- reitanqild 9y agoWell, -just place an annoying ad that shows up for everyone including customers, employees and executives who use any google property: """You seem to be using <x> which is a lousy internet provider for reasons x, y and z. Feel free to call them now at <phone number> or send a mail to <email> and let them know what you think. Also here are other known providers in your area: <list> You can also sign <here> and <here> to show your interest to other sane providers that are considering offering fiber in your area."""
- notriddle 9y agoDidn't they already basically kill Internet Explorer this way?
- reitanqild 9y agoYes. And they are trying to kill every other browser as well :-/ At this point I dislike chrome for exactly the same reasons I disliked IE: it is not good enough for me[0] and its sheer dominance makes web creators lazy and triggers bean counters to skimp on cross browser compatibility checks. But this time they could actually use it for good. [0]: yep. You would hear the same thing back then: You are the only one wanting to use another browser. Just get over it and use IE.
- nawgszy 9y ago>it is not good enough for me Well, I am curious: what makes other browsers better for you? The other day I posed this question in a thread, and the main answer was "a good feeling inside". Then the news that Mozilla forces you into being tracked by Google Analytics comes out, and that good feeling is gone, so what's your use case?
- cdubzzz 9y agoHere's one for ya - I can (and do) run my own account [0] and sync [1] server for Firefox. [0] https://mozilla-services.readthedocs.io/en/latest/howtos/run-fxa.html https://mozilla-services.readthedocs.io/en/latest/howtos/run... [1] https://mozilla-services.readthedocs.io/en/latest/howtos/run-sync-1.5.html https://mozilla-services.readthedocs.io/en/latest/howtos/run...
- lend000 9y agoNo ISP is abusing net neutrality yet (to my knowledge), so they haven't had the opportunity. Also, as others have said, that worsens the problem and makes the Internet less neutral.
- mattferderer 9y agoThis explains net neutrality really well. https://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-about-net-neutrality/ https://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-... It discusses the use of faster lanes that only companies with money would have access to. At first this seems fair that companies should be able to purchase better technology to improve their speed. The question then becomes what happens to traffic on the slower lanes? I could argue this both ways. At the end of the day, the history of most ISP companies makes me not trust them. Here's an article about Comcast trying to find loop holes https://www.wired.com/2015/11/comcast-may-have-found-a-major-net-neutrality-loophole/ https://www.wired.com/2015/11/comcast-may-have-found-a-major...
- chiefofgxbxl 9y agoAlso something to note: Google is not listed on the list of participants on the "battle for the net" web page. [0] Is this a mistake? Am I missing something? [0] https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/#participants https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/#participants Edit: I also checked for the parent company "Alphabet", which also is not listed.
- burntrelish1273 9y agoI think it's a minor omission, not a dodge to pacify handset makers or network carriers. To be fair, Apple is pro-NN but not vocal about it.
- minusSeven 9y ago>Google would probably lose money over it I think that's why they won't.you are asking them to do something where they have a deep conflict of interest not to.
- ucaetano 9y ago> Make the site list competitors in the user's area that don't play stupid games. Which competitors?
- erwinkle 9y agoWouldn't ISPs just whitelist google? How would google even check without causing false positives?
- scierama 9y ago> "any ISP who abuses net neutrality will have their customers cut off from Google products" > Is this an insane idea? Yep. It sounds like we're in agreement on the latter, as for the former; the way it would play out is that Google Search, YouTube and Gmail would fade and successful competitors would replace them overnight.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jameslk 9y agoWouldn't this basically be a form of economic tort? If so, I doubt Google would want to be on the receiving end of the legal consequences.
- mouldysammich 9y agoIf net neutrality was gutted, wouldnt they be allowed to do that? Is that not the same thing that the ISP is doing?
- jameslk 9y agoIn the case of tortious interference, Google would be selectively attempting to interfere with the existing business relationship between the ISP and its customers by targeting specific ISPs it deems as violating what it considers as net neutrality. Where as an ISP is unaware of any specific relationship and therefore isn't attempting to interfere. IANAL but that's my interpretation of this specific tort law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference#Elements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference#Elements
- rpearl 9y agoAh yes, Google should definitely punish end users because of what ISPs are trying to do.
- marcoperaza 9y agoYour key assumption is that Google has all this market power. They don't. The only, and truly ONLY, reason that they're so big and powerful is that everyone automatically goes to google when in need of search. Their business would disappear in a hurry the day that changes. What's one way that could change? Google stops working for millions of people, so they start using another product.
- RugnirViking 9y agoAnd gmail and android and angular and adsense and chrome browser and youtube and google maps. Essentially, what i'm saying is they are not, and have not been for a very long time, about search The money is mostly coming from advertising across these services and especially adwords and adsense
- DaemonKrog 9y agoSo, abuse net neutrality to punish customers of ISPs who abuse net neutrality.
- calafrax 9y agoI think Google should allow neutral public access to their 100,000 mile private fiber optic network. That would really send a statement that they were serious about network neutrality.
- hoorayimhelping 9y agoWorkflow: 1. I pay an ISP to provide me with internet service 2. Google cuts off services from my ISP I've already paid. 3. I call my ISP and say "google told me to complain to you," they say, "thank you for your feedback." 4. I look for a competitor. There aren't any, or the competitors don't suit my needs. Which is why this problem happens in the first place. If I could go to a competitor, I would. This is the key assumption that the whole scheme is based on and from what I understand, for most Americans, it is flat wrong. 5. I don't use my ISP's bandwidth cause Google is blocking it. I've paid them money. My continual complaints tie up a cheap call center which inconveniences them very slightly, if at all. They still have my money, plus the costs for the services they're offering me just plummeted cause I'm not using any bandwidth cause I can't access the internet. They win, I lose.
- AmIFirstToThink 9y agoYou can use cell phone data. Or buy internet from phone company instead of cable company.
- brokenmachine 9y agoThese are both not reasonable alternatives for all people. Cell phone data is usually much more expensive and often people don't have a lot of choice on what connection options they have.
- nine_k 9y agoFor the technically literate, three letters: VPN. Unfortunately, they (we) are a minority. Also, it's double expense, especially if you do something like Netflix.
- unityByFreedom 9y agoYou can't turn off Google. You'd risk lives. People Google for "Poison control" and other emergency services. They could change their banner, though, and I'm sad they aren't serious enough about this issue to do that.
- quanticle 9y ago>Is this an insane idea? It's not even that insane. MTV did exactly this to gain an edge when negotiating with cable companies. They ran ads telling people to call their cable companies and say, "I want my MTV!" The campaigns were largely successful, and MTV quickly became a standard offering on cable TV. Google has far more negotiating power than MTV did. If Google actually cut off ISPs and told people to call their ISP and say, "I want my net neutrality!" it would have a good chance of working.
- jak1192 9y agoGoogle Netflix Facebook etc. could stand to benefit by being able to afford faster speeds than younger smaller companies. The cost to compete is going to be higher, thus easier to maintain monopoly status.
- pitstopottery 9y agoGoogle isn't about Net Neutrality. They're about profit. If it's more profitable to be with NetNeutral then they will choose it. If it's more profitable to be with Cable,Att, etc... they will go that route. Google can be sued and dismantled if they don't focus on profit for their major shareholders. It's not as much Google and their CEO, as it is how the US' pseudo-capitalist dictatorship operates.
- joseluisq 9y agoW3C Encrypted Media Extensions Editors: David Dorwin, Google Inc.Jerry Smith, Microsoft CorporationMark Watson, Netflix Inc.Adrian Bateman, Microsoft Corporation (Until May 2014) https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/ https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/ So in this way we can save the net neutrality?
- agentgt 9y agoI'm not against Net Neutrality but If Google were to do that it would be ironic, evil, and probably exacerbate the situation. One of the arguments against Net Neutrality is it would help break up the Google marketing monopoly (yes this logic is shockingly what the cable companies have provided for the government as a pro). In some sense Google is not much different than the cable companies except that the only entity that can out leverage the cable companies is the government that owns the poles and airways. (If you don't think google is a monopoly or at least extremely unfair it is impossible to make a competitor to google as you would have to do your marketing of a such a product through them). Frankly I'm already concerned that 99% of the marketing is controlled already by two entities: Google and Facebook. If google were to do what your proposing it would probably make far more people aware of the monopoly.
- gremlinsinc 9y agoI personally think Google/FB/Reddit/etc should block users from ATT/Comcast/Verizon every monday as a sign of protest... They should be redirected to a page saying - your ISP is against Net Neutrality. Contact them and tell them how you feel about this...or find a new ISP. Your access will be restored on Tuesday. If you don't like this, get used to it-it's the way a net neutrality-less internet works. Those same ISP's will be begging to bring back net neutrality in a month or two.
- mikegerwitz 9y agoI strongly support net neutrality, but this is dangerous. First: this is pushing the onus on the consumers. Not just pushing---forcing, even. My grandmother, my wife even, doesn't care about net neutrality---they want to use the Internet. I've seen suggestions of using a VPN, and I use Tor for all of my Internet traffic, but this is an even _greater_ onus on consumers. It's a far bigger impact than the abolishment of net neutrality itself. Perhaps more importantly, this is subverting the legal/regulatory system by using your market dominance to essentially declare your own law. The system is failing us (those who support net neutrality, at least) right now, but it's there for a reason, and it's a slippery slope to try to reverse legislative and regulatory decisions by force. Civil uprising is fine. Campaigns to raise awareness (like the blackout for SOPA), okay. Many other things are okay. But leave innocent people out of the crossfire. They should care, yes, but it's up to _us_ to make change---those of us who understand the issue and why it's important. It's up to us to raise awareness. I'm not going to go hold people hostage over my ideals. What if Google weren't on your side? What if they did _not_ support net neutrality? Would you be okay with them using their dominance to push an agenda you didn't like? I'd think not.
- dillweed 9y agoI think I understand what you're saying but wanted to express admiration for the opening thesis.