10 ms·

Google and Verizon in Talks on Selling Internet Priority

166 points by necubi 16y ago

hansef 16y ago
Alternatively, Google says "net neutrality is is great for everybody else, bitches." "Don't be evil" is officially dead at the hands of a lust for control. Compare to Google in 2006: "Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay. Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight." -- Eric Schmidt http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- alf 16y ago
  This article a little hard to believe to me. It's unsettling to see it from the NYT. Is there a need to bring up Android twice? I fail see to how Verizon running Android phones strengthens the notion that these two companies are forming an alliance. This would go against everything Google has publicly stated on the subject.
  - mikedouglas 16y ago
    Google has supported net neutrality legislation, but I don't think they've ever ruled out playing along with the carriers, had the regulatory efforts failed. I'm not so sure what is so hard to believe; fast response times are crucial to Google's core business, selling eyeballs to advertisers. They could have waited for Microsoft or Yahoo to make the first move, but it's possible they were worried about being shut out.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
  - jsz0 16y ago
    Allow me to paint a conspiracy theory: Verizon: So yeah Google... Apple is interested in making a deal to prioritize iTunes traffic with us. We figured we'd see if you wanted to make a deal too. Google: No way. Verizon: OK well, bad news, we're not going to subsidize Android phones anymore. We're never touching Google TV for FIOS. We're going to start selling the iPhone in fact -- and Apple has even let us change the default search engine to Bing as part of our prioritization deal. Google: Well played. Where do we sign up?
    - refulgentis 16y ago
      That's not a conspiracy theory, that's completely making shit up. Apple doesn't appear once in the entire article.
      - nostrademons 16y ago
        "That's not a conspiracy theory, that's completely making shit up." Aren't they usually the same thing?
        jsz0 16y ago
        Definitely. It's just interesting to think about the possibilities. Things always happen for a reason. Maybe I should have added a disclaimer that it's complete speculation. If Google had made this type of deal with Comcast or Cox Communications there wouldn't be any room for wacky conspiracy theories because they have very little direct interest in any Google services or products. Verizon does. That's what makes it fun.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    >This would go against everything Google has publicly stated on the subject. Who cares what a company has publicly stated? If a US insurance company has always publicly stated they only care about saving lives would you believe them? I guess so.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- hartror 16y ago
  As opposed to now :( http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/search/label/Net%20Neutrality http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/search/label/Net%20Ne...
brown9-2 16y ago
Isn't this an about-face for Google? I thought they were for neutrality?
- mlinsey 16y ago
  Yes. They have been outspoken advocates of net neutrality in the past. I could understand if net neutrality fell by the wayside and lots of companies started bidding on preferred access, Google could reasonably say "we wanted net neutrality, but in order to compete in a world without it, we have to buy preferred access as well". But having them be one of the first to bid for preferred access is immensely disappointing.
  - bryanh 16y ago
    Well, they could be the one of the first to be reported as bidding for preferred access. I am sure telco's were talking "what-if" with content providers before this.
paul9290 16y ago
WoW - what? Start-ups are going to have to pay ISPs to get "prioritization"? If this is true Google just like Skype is selling it's soul to Verizon and if this deal goes through the Internet is seriously going to change for the worst.
jdbeast00 16y ago
could it be that Google is trying to show people what could happen if a tiered internet became a reality, like reverse psychology
- fmora 16y ago
  I think that is wishful thinking. My gut is that they are seriously considering this if it allows them to grow.
modeless 16y ago
Whaaa? Either the NYTimes is completely wrong about what this agreement entails, or Google has a lot of explaining to do.
- grandalf 16y ago
  Google tried "not being evil". This is Google's attempt at Jujitsu -- people are more scared of a google/verizon mega deal than they are of not having net neutrality. Google is using fear of its potential evil to leverage sentiment against this deal and toward net neutrality. Google wins either way.
  - andreyf 16y ago
    There's some jujitsu going on in your justification of the accusations being waged against Google, but I think it's a little silly to think this is just a PR stunt.
    - grandalf 16y ago
      Do you think Google's advocacy of net neutrality wasn't a PR stunt? It was, and this is too. Consider: Best for Google: Net neutrality Second best for Google: non-neutral deals with as many ISPs as possible. Google's selection of a premium wireless provider suggests that it's ready to make bold moves (and spend serious cash) to clinch a good position in a non net-neutral world. This is scary both for competitors and consumers who may have initially been on the fence about net neutrality.
      - andreyf 16y ago
        In my personal opinion, net neutrality is not best for Google, aside from the PR hit. They have the cash to pay for the premium bandwidth pipes, unlike hypothetical startups they're trying to compete with. Net neutrality lowers the barrier to entry for competitors: without it, startups might have to raise serious capital if they want to provide services with the latency and bandwidth Google does.
fmora 16y ago
If they go through with this it may be the beginning of the end for Google. At least for the google we once liked. Too many people are being hired by them. When they hire a lot of people not all them can be that great. I guess is time for the next great startup to come. The great next challenger of google may still be but an idea on the mind of an entrepreneur at this point. May explain why google likes to buy a lot of startups. Better kill them now before they kill google.
ismarc 16y ago
I ended up reading this article multiple times and combing over every line of it to try and find the part where Google was going to buy Internet priority. In the end, I've concluded that the opposite is taking place. Google and Verizon are in talks about Google not taking legal action against Verizon, no matter how they choose to manage their network. While still troubling, the real concern is what this would show legislators about the need for net neutrality provisions. And it could go either way.
- nkassis 16y ago
  I was going to say the same thing. The article seems very sparse on details of what is really being discussed. It's all talk until the details are public. But my google love bias is probably a little transparent.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  Another article in the Washington post makes this clearer. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/08/google_and_verizon_have_come.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/08/google_and... Google isn't buying priority, they're negotiating for non-priority. That's a horse of a different color entirely.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
drawkbox 16y ago
The absolute worst part about this is that there is no reason to update basic infrastructure anymore on the lowest tier. While I believe in the market some things are best as a baseline like basic education, roads, telephones, and internet access because those baselines actually create more market benefits and encourage opportunity and innovation.
chc 16y ago
I'm not sure this is really an about-face on Google's part, even if true. There's nothing in the article to suggest that Google wants Verizon to require payment, just that there are talks between the two companies about Google paying Verizon not to put it in the slow lane. Reading between the lines, it sounds like Verizon is implementing a very non-neutral service and putting pressure on Google to pay up or have its sites penalized.
StavrosK 16y ago
The Onion got a makeover? I can't say I recognise the design...
- lsb 16y ago
  Ironically, the NYT's web design was led for the past few years by Khoi Vinh, whom they hired from the Onion.
jsz0 16y ago
Total capitulation on Google's part. They were one of the few companies that could have stood up to the telecoms. We can't expect the congress, bought and paid for by telecom dollars, to do it. The courts won't allow the FCC to do it. This was Google's moment to change the world. What bothers me is not only did they shrug off that responsibility we projected on them as being a smart company standing up for users but they didn't even put up a fight. They seem to be the first US company to happily surrender to the telecoms. I hate to say it because it comes off like a conspiracy theory but you can't convince me that Android and Google TV aren't the main factors behind this. Google doesn't want to pick a fight with wireless providers, telco-video providers, cable TV/broadband providers. They need them to push their products. I can't believe they're doing this. It's mind boggling.
- rdtsc 16y ago
  > This was Google's moment to change the world. It is Google's moment. They will change the world, as soon as they start controlling who gets access to what on the internet along with Verizon and others. > ... responsibility we projected on them as being a smart company That is really our fault not theirs. We are the ones fooled by their marketing and moralistic mission statements. > They seem to be the first US company to happily surrender to the telecoms. Google exists to make money. If surrendering to the telecoms makes money then that's what they'll do. > I can't believe they're doing this. It's mind boggling. What truly boggles the mind is the number of smart people here who are completely enthralled with Google, and believe it is a source of pure good in the world, fighting those evil companies on behalf of the little guy. Google is a great company and I admire it for building such an exceptional image of itself in the eyes of tech community. It is a good company not because it saves the world or feeds the hungry, but because it makes money.
  - pyre 16y ago
    >> They seem to be the first US company to happily surrender to the >> telecoms. > Google exists to make money. If surrendering to the telecoms makes > money then that's what they'll do. That's a rather naive view of a complex question. Google has to balance short-, medium-, and long-term gains. If my only goal is to 'make money,' then I could make a ton of money if someone paid me $1-million to inject myself with the Ebola virus, but that's probably a fairly short-sighted decision...
gojomo 16y ago
The agreement could eventually lead to higher charges for Internet users. But it could also lead to lower charges -- if the content/advertising side of the net starts to subsidize the last mile via the carriers. Broadcast TV is 'free', after all. And even if such agreements caused higher charges in the short term, if that prompted new entrants and the deployment of new technologies -- mesh networks again, anyone? -- then the medium-to-longer term trend could again be lower charges. I could easily imagine a starter broadband service that is totally 'free' -- with bandwidth to participating sites as fast as those sites want to pay, and bandwidth to all other sites under some smallish rate cap (no good for video/p2p). The same arrangement could also work well for areas of 'free' wifi -- subsidized sites are fast at bulk, other sites work but subject to some per-person (or per all-users) caps. That's different than what we're used to, but not necessarily worse. It could provide incentives for creating new avenues to the end-user and new service opportunities. (Consider: a VPN account that pays the preference fee, so that again 'all sites' are top-speed.)
- pyre 16y ago
  I thought that mesh networks were largely proven to not have the scalability needed.
ellyagg 16y ago
This is either wrong or Google will reconsider. Too many of the people Google likes to recruit would consider this evil and Google is made up of too many people who would consider this evil.
- seldo 16y ago
  Evil enough to give up free lunches and the tech world's best resume point? Evil enough to quit if you already work there?
  - rdtsc 16y ago
    In other words "evil enough so it cannot be rationalized away" in the face of "free lunches"? -- Probably not. Worse things have been rationalized away by people...
    - pyre 16y ago
      While it might not kill their influx of talent to zero, I'm sure it'll put at least some dent in it (however minor it may be). There are people that will not be able to rationalize this away, and at the very least there will be a lot more people that will have their view of Google major-ly tarnished (even if they are still willing to swallow their principles and go to work there).
  - itistoday 16y ago
    I can't speak for others, but at some point I'm going to start hiring people to work with on various projects, and if they tell me that one of the reasons that they left (or chose not to work for) Google was because they were disgusted with Google failing to do its part to "Do No Evil" and support Net Neutrality, I would be much more inclined to hire them. That's someone I respect. Someone I'll get along with, and probably someone with a strong moral sense and therefore someone I'm more likely to trust. I don't want to hire people who just come for the "free lunch."
- mikedouglas 16y ago
  It's quite likely these type of agreements will become common place among large companies and VC-funded startups ("Today, Sequoia announced a deal with AT&T, giving its partners special access to..."). Microsoft and Apple aren't going to let this advantage last long, and the internet landscape could look quite different in two years.
refulgentis 16y ago
Previous comments by John Gruber on Google seem appropriate here. "Google senior vice president Jonathan Rosenberg published a long memo “about the meaning of ‘open’ as it relates to the Internet, Google, and [Google’s] users.” It’s the biggest pile of horseshit I’ve ever seen from Google. Basically, he’s spewed 4,000 words to say that “open” is always good and always wins, Google is always open, therefore Google is always good and will always win. And please don’t worry your pretty little minds about things like Google’s search or ad algorithms or the specific details of how its data centers work, all of which things Google could not possibly be more secretive about. Because if you think about these things, you’ll see that Google isn’t open at all about certain financially lucrative areas where it has built huge technical advantages over its competitors, and that’s not possible, because Google is always open. I really hope for Google’s sake that this horseshit artist Rosenberg is not representative of their executive ranks. Also: open is an adjective; the noun form in this context is openness." http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/12/22/open http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/12/22/open
may 16y ago
WTF GOOGLE?
gojomo 16y ago
Don't panic! The internet is not a delicate little flower needing careful tending by wise regulators. It is grey goo. Any traffic tiering or preferencing schemes that are tried which don't feed overall capacity and delight users with new possibilities will be swept aside by new alternatives in a matter of 5-10 years.
- phaedrus 16y ago
  Interesting - I never heard anyone equate the internet to an unstoppable self-replicating technology before - but by God I hope you're right.
- endlessvoid94 16y ago
  I wish that was true. But don't forget who owns, operates, and maintains the actual cables. Telecoms.
  - gojomo 16y ago
    Where we're going, we don't need cables.
- rnfein 16y ago
  If users don't believe their collective market power is strong enough, they should remember they are empowered in other ways too. Elections in November, starting a net-neutral provider as competition, etc...
Charuru 16y ago
Oh I get it now, Google by doing this will cause Verizon to raise their prices, and thereby paving the way for them to come in with their own ISP and eat the telecoms' lunch.
jemfinch 16y ago
Where's the evidence?
orangecat 16y ago
This is just baffling. Google is willing to stand up to the freaking Chinese government, but Verizon can force them to pay Danegeld? What happened to all that dark fiber they were buying? Are they looking at scary internal projections about iPhones on Verizon and Facebook's search engine? I really hope this story is wrong; otherwise it says disturbing things about the stranglehold we've given to user-hostile oligopolies.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  >Google is willing to stand up to the freaking Chinese government Really? I must have missed that. I only saw where they posted a message about leaving China, never did and ended up complying with them in the end. Was the standing up part before that or after?
neuro 16y ago
we'll find out when it's too late, meanwhile enjoy the sight of fine grained wood doors with highly polished brass locks: "The Federal Communications Commission is negotiating behind closed doors with Verizon, Google, AT&T Inc. and other companies on rules...." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-04/google-verizon-are-said-to-have-reached-deal-on-how-to-handle-web-traffic.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-04/google-verizon-are-...
jchonphoenix 16y ago
The price of internet in the United States is already ridiculously high compared to the rest of the world. Additionally, without net neutrality, monopolies could be easily formed.
- jpwagner 16y ago
  http://i36.tinypic.com/293wmrb.jpg http://i36.tinypic.com/293wmrb.jpg
Ardit20 16y ago
Google, that would be evil, if you do it I would be breaking up and go search on yahoo, or any other search provider. Second, all of this article seems to be filled with the word secret. We live in a democracy which depends in its very foundations on transparency. Even if it is two private companies, it just makes me utterly suspicious and default to guilty until proven otherwise. Third, who on earth are these consumers NYT? Some sort of cattle you can chop as you wish like products? We are not "consumers" denoting some sort of robot stuffing his face!
timtadh 16y ago
yet they still openly espouse net neutrality on their public policy blog, doublethink? http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/search/label/Net%20Neutrality http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/search/label/Net%20Ne...
woodrow 16y ago
This article http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/08/google_and_verizon_have_come.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/08/google_and... paints a slightly different picture -- it claims GOOG was negotiating with VZ to prevent others negotiating non-neutral deals on wireline communications: "Specifically, Google and Verizon's agreement could prevent Verizon from offering some prioritization to the biggest bidders who want better delivery of content on its DSL and fiber networks, according to the sources. But that wouldn’t apply to mobile phones, the sources said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the companies have not officially made their announcement. And Verizon could offer some managed services -- better quality to some Web sites such as those offering health care services, the sources said. But some analysts speculate that managed services could also include discounted YouTube and other services to FiOs customers at better quality." Whether or not this is still "not being evil" is another question.
- moultano 16y ago
  Hope you don't mind, I submitted this here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1577341 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1577341
mmaunder 16y ago
This hurts all of us entrepreneurs the most. The cost of premium throughput for your website will be a major barrier to entry for startups. It will ensure that the incumbents who can afford it stay on top and it means startups who offer broadband services will need to raise more money to compete and grow. Google just lost their rights to "First do no evil." because they are doing this first and it's evil. This hurts the web at least as much as Microsoft's browser monopoly did. Larry and Sergey I want you to think about how you would feel about this if you were starting Google today.
Freechoice 16y ago
No more Android for me or google. Hello Bing and stuff.
exception 16y ago
Net neutrality is a concept founded upon a fantasy. The idea that we should all get the same priority on the Internet is ridiculous. It has always been the case (and always will be the case), that the more money you have, the better services you can acquire. From the guy running a gaming server, through the hacker building a highly scalable network using Linode, CNN using Akamai for streaming media and Google building hundreds of data centers; we're all willing to pay for bandwidth or reduce latency. I'm not against the idea of network neutrality, quite the contrary; however, the gap between the aspiration and what goes on in practice is already too great. We're all players and it can never be unwound.
- orblivion 16y ago
  I agree. That's why we should keep it out of the law, since it's an unrealizable ideal, and just try to approximate it as much as we can. Egalitarianism is nice, but I don't think it's a moral imperative.
roadnottaken 16y ago
CNET is reporting the story quite differently: "As part of the deal, Verizon would agree not to selectively throttle Internet traffic through its pipes. That would not, however, apply to data traveling over its wireless network for mobile phones, the report says." http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20012703-260.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20012703-260.html This makes it sound like Google is still fighting the good fight... (via Slashdot)
megafotze 16y ago
don't be evil my ass
known 16y ago
Looks like Google is another Microsoft in the making.
ayameyamamoto 16y ago
Does anyone think this issue is about Google offering Verizon users a chance to use that SPDY protocol they invented?
api 16y ago
This sort of proves the point of the documentary film "The Corporation." Even if the owners, managers, shareholders, etc. of a corporation don't want to do slimy things, the system imposes a fiduciary responsibility on them to be slimy if doing so will make next quarter better.
ashishbharthi 16y ago
Google Public Policy twitter account just tweeted that "@NYTimes is wrong. We've not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet."
- loewenskind 16y ago
  Then why don't they make an official statement?
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

166 points by necubi 16y ago

Alternatively, Google says "net neutrality is is great for everybody else, bitches." "Don't be evil" is officially dead at the hands of a lust for control. Compare to Google in 2006: "Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay. Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight." -- Eric Schmidt http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
alf 16y ago
This article a little hard to believe to me. It's unsettling to see it from the NYT. Is there a need to bring up Android twice? I fail see to how Verizon running Android phones strengthens the notion that these two companies are forming an alliance. This would go against everything Google has publicly stated on the subject.
- mikedouglas 16y ago
  Google has supported net neutrality legislation, but I don't think they've ever ruled out playing along with the carriers, had the regulatory efforts failed. I'm not so sure what is so hard to believe; fast response times are crucial to Google's core business, selling eyeballs to advertisers. They could have waited for Microsoft or Yahoo to make the first move, but it's possible they were worried about being shut out.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- jsz0 16y ago
  Allow me to paint a conspiracy theory: Verizon: So yeah Google... Apple is interested in making a deal to prioritize iTunes traffic with us. We figured we'd see if you wanted to make a deal too. Google: No way. Verizon: OK well, bad news, we're not going to subsidize Android phones anymore. We're never touching Google TV for FIOS. We're going to start selling the iPhone in fact -- and Apple has even let us change the default search engine to Bing as part of our prioritization deal. Google: Well played. Where do we sign up?
  - refulgentis 16y ago
    That's not a conspiracy theory, that's completely making shit up. Apple doesn't appear once in the entire article.
    - nostrademons 16y ago
      "That's not a conspiracy theory, that's completely making shit up." Aren't they usually the same thing?
      - jsz0 16y ago
        Definitely. It's just interesting to think about the possibilities. Things always happen for a reason. Maybe I should have added a disclaimer that it's complete speculation. If Google had made this type of deal with Comcast or Cox Communications there wouldn't be any room for wacky conspiracy theories because they have very little direct interest in any Google services or products. Verizon does. That's what makes it fun.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  >This would go against everything Google has publicly stated on the subject. Who cares what a company has publicly stated? If a US insurance company has always publicly stated they only care about saving lives would you believe them? I guess so.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
hartror 16y ago
As opposed to now :( http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/search/label/Net%20Neutrality http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/search/label/Net%20Ne...

brown9-2 16y ago

Isn't this an about-face for Google? I thought they were for neutrality?

mlinsey 16y ago
Yes. They have been outspoken advocates of net neutrality in the past. I could understand if net neutrality fell by the wayside and lots of companies started bidding on preferred access, Google could reasonably say "we wanted net neutrality, but in order to compete in a world without it, we have to buy preferred access as well". But having them be one of the first to bid for preferred access is immensely disappointing.
- bryanh 16y ago
  Well, they could be the one of the first to be reported as bidding for preferred access. I am sure telco's were talking "what-if" with content providers before this.

paul9290 16y ago

WoW - what? Start-ups are going to have to pay ISPs to get "prioritization"? If this is true Google just like Skype is selling it's soul to Verizon and if this deal goes through the Internet is seriously going to change for the worst.

jdbeast00 16y ago

could it be that Google is trying to show people what could happen if a tiered internet became a reality, like reverse psychology

fmora 16y ago
I think that is wishful thinking. My gut is that they are seriously considering this if it allows them to grow.

modeless 16y ago

Whaaa? Either the NYTimes is completely wrong about what this agreement entails, or Google has a lot of explaining to do.

grandalf 16y ago
Google tried "not being evil". This is Google's attempt at Jujitsu -- people are more scared of a google/verizon mega deal than they are of not having net neutrality. Google is using fear of its potential evil to leverage sentiment against this deal and toward net neutrality. Google wins either way.
- andreyf 16y ago
  There's some jujitsu going on in your justification of the accusations being waged against Google, but I think it's a little silly to think this is just a PR stunt.
  - grandalf 16y ago
    Do you think Google's advocacy of net neutrality wasn't a PR stunt? It was, and this is too. Consider: Best for Google: Net neutrality Second best for Google: non-neutral deals with as many ISPs as possible. Google's selection of a premium wireless provider suggests that it's ready to make bold moves (and spend serious cash) to clinch a good position in a non net-neutral world. This is scary both for competitors and consumers who may have initially been on the fence about net neutrality.
    - andreyf 16y ago
      In my personal opinion, net neutrality is not best for Google, aside from the PR hit. They have the cash to pay for the premium bandwidth pipes, unlike hypothetical startups they're trying to compete with. Net neutrality lowers the barrier to entry for competitors: without it, startups might have to raise serious capital if they want to provide services with the latency and bandwidth Google does.

fmora 16y ago

If they go through with this it may be the beginning of the end for Google. At least for the google we once liked. Too many people are being hired by them. When they hire a lot of people not all them can be that great. I guess is time for the next great startup to come. The great next challenger of google may still be but an idea on the mind of an entrepreneur at this point. May explain why google likes to buy a lot of startups. Better kill them now before they kill google.

ismarc 16y ago

I ended up reading this article multiple times and combing over every line of it to try and find the part where Google was going to buy Internet priority. In the end, I've concluded that the opposite is taking place. Google and Verizon are in talks about Google not taking legal action against Verizon, no matter how they choose to manage their network. While still troubling, the real concern is what this would show legislators about the need for net neutrality provisions. And it could go either way.

nkassis 16y ago
I was going to say the same thing. The article seems very sparse on details of what is really being discussed. It's all talk until the details are public. But my google love bias is probably a little transparent.
InclinedPlane 16y ago
Another article in the Washington post makes this clearer. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/08/google_and_verizon_have_come.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/08/google_and... Google isn't buying priority, they're negotiating for non-priority. That's a horse of a different color entirely.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

drawkbox 16y ago

The absolute worst part about this is that there is no reason to update basic infrastructure anymore on the lowest tier. While I believe in the market some things are best as a baseline like basic education, roads, telephones, and internet access because those baselines actually create more market benefits and encourage opportunity and innovation.

chc 16y ago

I'm not sure this is really an about-face on Google's part, even if true. There's nothing in the article to suggest that Google wants Verizon to require payment, just that there are talks between the two companies about Google paying Verizon not to put it in the slow lane. Reading between the lines, it sounds like Verizon is implementing a very non-neutral service and putting pressure on Google to pay up or have its sites penalized.

StavrosK 16y ago

The Onion got a makeover? I can't say I recognise the design...

lsb 16y ago
Ironically, the NYT's web design was led for the past few years by Khoi Vinh, whom they hired from the Onion.

jsz0 16y ago

Total capitulation on Google's part. They were one of the few companies that could have stood up to the telecoms. We can't expect the congress, bought and paid for by telecom dollars, to do it. The courts won't allow the FCC to do it. This was Google's moment to change the world. What bothers me is not only did they shrug off that responsibility we projected on them as being a smart company standing up for users but they didn't even put up a fight. They seem to be the first US company to happily surrender to the telecoms. I hate to say it because it comes off like a conspiracy theory but you can't convince me that Android and Google TV aren't the main factors behind this. Google doesn't want to pick a fight with wireless providers, telco-video providers, cable TV/broadband providers. They need them to push their products. I can't believe they're doing this. It's mind boggling.

rdtsc 16y ago
> This was Google's moment to change the world. It is Google's moment. They will change the world, as soon as they start controlling who gets access to what on the internet along with Verizon and others. > ... responsibility we projected on them as being a smart company That is really our fault not theirs. We are the ones fooled by their marketing and moralistic mission statements. > They seem to be the first US company to happily surrender to the telecoms. Google exists to make money. If surrendering to the telecoms makes money then that's what they'll do. > I can't believe they're doing this. It's mind boggling. What truly boggles the mind is the number of smart people here who are completely enthralled with Google, and believe it is a source of pure good in the world, fighting those evil companies on behalf of the little guy. Google is a great company and I admire it for building such an exceptional image of itself in the eyes of tech community. It is a good company not because it saves the world or feeds the hungry, but because it makes money.
- pyre 16y ago
  >> They seem to be the first US company to happily surrender to the >> telecoms. > Google exists to make money. If surrendering to the telecoms makes > money then that's what they'll do. That's a rather naive view of a complex question. Google has to balance short-, medium-, and long-term gains. If my only goal is to 'make money,' then I could make a ton of money if someone paid me $1-million to inject myself with the Ebola virus, but that's probably a fairly short-sighted decision...

gojomo 16y ago

The agreement could eventually lead to higher charges for Internet users. But it could also lead to lower charges -- if the content/advertising side of the net starts to subsidize the last mile via the carriers. Broadcast TV is 'free', after all. And even if such agreements caused higher charges in the short term, if that prompted new entrants and the deployment of new technologies -- mesh networks again, anyone? -- then the medium-to-longer term trend could again be lower charges. I could easily imagine a starter broadband service that is totally 'free' -- with bandwidth to participating sites as fast as those sites want to pay, and bandwidth to all other sites under some smallish rate cap (no good for video/p2p). The same arrangement could also work well for areas of 'free' wifi -- subsidized sites are fast at bulk, other sites work but subject to some per-person (or per all-users) caps. That's different than what we're used to, but not necessarily worse. It could provide incentives for creating new avenues to the end-user and new service opportunities. (Consider: a VPN account that pays the preference fee, so that again 'all sites' are top-speed.)

pyre 16y ago
I thought that mesh networks were largely proven to not have the scalability needed.

ellyagg 16y ago

This is either wrong or Google will reconsider. Too many of the people Google likes to recruit would consider this evil and Google is made up of too many people who would consider this evil.

seldo 16y ago
Evil enough to give up free lunches and the tech world's best resume point? Evil enough to quit if you already work there?
- rdtsc 16y ago
  In other words "evil enough so it cannot be rationalized away" in the face of "free lunches"? -- Probably not. Worse things have been rationalized away by people...
  - pyre 16y ago
    While it might not kill their influx of talent to zero, I'm sure it'll put at least some dent in it (however minor it may be). There are people that will not be able to rationalize this away, and at the very least there will be a lot more people that will have their view of Google major-ly tarnished (even if they are still willing to swallow their principles and go to work there).
- itistoday 16y ago
  I can't speak for others, but at some point I'm going to start hiring people to work with on various projects, and if they tell me that one of the reasons that they left (or chose not to work for) Google was because they were disgusted with Google failing to do its part to "Do No Evil" and support Net Neutrality, I would be much more inclined to hire them. That's someone I respect. Someone I'll get along with, and probably someone with a strong moral sense and therefore someone I'm more likely to trust. I don't want to hire people who just come for the "free lunch."
mikedouglas 16y ago
It's quite likely these type of agreements will become common place among large companies and VC-funded startups ("Today, Sequoia announced a deal with AT&T, giving its partners special access to..."). Microsoft and Apple aren't going to let this advantage last long, and the internet landscape could look quite different in two years.

refulgentis 16y ago

Previous comments by John Gruber on Google seem appropriate here. "Google senior vice president Jonathan Rosenberg published a long memo “about the meaning of ‘open’ as it relates to the Internet, Google, and [Google’s] users.” It’s the biggest pile of horseshit I’ve ever seen from Google. Basically, he’s spewed 4,000 words to say that “open” is always good and always wins, Google is always open, therefore Google is always good and will always win. And please don’t worry your pretty little minds about things like Google’s search or ad algorithms or the specific details of how its data centers work, all of which things Google could not possibly be more secretive about. Because if you think about these things, you’ll see that Google isn’t open at all about certain financially lucrative areas where it has built huge technical advantages over its competitors, and that’s not possible, because Google is always open. I really hope for Google’s sake that this horseshit artist Rosenberg is not representative of their executive ranks. Also: open is an adjective; the noun form in this context is openness." http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/12/22/open http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/12/22/open

may 16y ago

WTF GOOGLE?

gojomo 16y ago

Don't panic! The internet is not a delicate little flower needing careful tending by wise regulators. It is grey goo. Any traffic tiering or preferencing schemes that are tried which don't feed overall capacity and delight users with new possibilities will be swept aside by new alternatives in a matter of 5-10 years.

phaedrus 16y ago
Interesting - I never heard anyone equate the internet to an unstoppable self-replicating technology before - but by God I hope you're right.
endlessvoid94 16y ago
I wish that was true. But don't forget who owns, operates, and maintains the actual cables. Telecoms.
- gojomo 16y ago
  Where we're going, we don't need cables.
rnfein 16y ago
If users don't believe their collective market power is strong enough, they should remember they are empowered in other ways too. Elections in November, starting a net-neutral provider as competition, etc...

Charuru 16y ago

Oh I get it now, Google by doing this will cause Verizon to raise their prices, and thereby paving the way for them to come in with their own ISP and eat the telecoms' lunch.

jemfinch 16y ago

Where's the evidence?

orangecat 16y ago

This is just baffling. Google is willing to stand up to the freaking Chinese government, but Verizon can force them to pay Danegeld? What happened to all that dark fiber they were buying? Are they looking at scary internal projections about iPhones on Verizon and Facebook's search engine? I really hope this story is wrong; otherwise it says disturbing things about the stranglehold we've given to user-hostile oligopolies.

loewenskind 16y ago
>Google is willing to stand up to the freaking Chinese government Really? I must have missed that. I only saw where they posted a message about leaving China, never did and ended up complying with them in the end. Was the standing up part before that or after?

neuro 16y ago

we'll find out when it's too late, meanwhile enjoy the sight of fine grained wood doors with highly polished brass locks: "The Federal Communications Commission is negotiating behind closed doors with Verizon, Google, AT&T Inc. and other companies on rules...." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-04/google-verizon-are-said-to-have-reached-deal-on-how-to-handle-web-traffic.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-04/google-verizon-are-...

jchonphoenix 16y ago

The price of internet in the United States is already ridiculously high compared to the rest of the world. Additionally, without net neutrality, monopolies could be easily formed.

jpwagner 16y ago
http://i36.tinypic.com/293wmrb.jpg http://i36.tinypic.com/293wmrb.jpg

Ardit20 16y ago

Google, that would be evil, if you do it I would be breaking up and go search on yahoo, or any other search provider. Second, all of this article seems to be filled with the word secret. We live in a democracy which depends in its very foundations on transparency. Even if it is two private companies, it just makes me utterly suspicious and default to guilty until proven otherwise. Third, who on earth are these consumers NYT? Some sort of cattle you can chop as you wish like products? We are not "consumers" denoting some sort of robot stuffing his face!

timtadh 16y ago

yet they still openly espouse net neutrality on their public policy blog, doublethink? http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/search/label/Net%20Neutrality http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/search/label/Net%20Ne...

woodrow 16y ago

This article http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/08/google_and_verizon_have_come.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/08/google_and... paints a slightly different picture -- it claims GOOG was negotiating with VZ to prevent others negotiating non-neutral deals on wireline communications: "Specifically, Google and Verizon's agreement could prevent Verizon from offering some prioritization to the biggest bidders who want better delivery of content on its DSL and fiber networks, according to the sources. But that wouldn’t apply to mobile phones, the sources said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the companies have not officially made their announcement. And Verizon could offer some managed services -- better quality to some Web sites such as those offering health care services, the sources said. But some analysts speculate that managed services could also include discounted YouTube and other services to FiOs customers at better quality." Whether or not this is still "not being evil" is another question.

moultano 16y ago
Hope you don't mind, I submitted this here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1577341 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1577341

mmaunder 16y ago

This hurts all of us entrepreneurs the most. The cost of premium throughput for your website will be a major barrier to entry for startups. It will ensure that the incumbents who can afford it stay on top and it means startups who offer broadband services will need to raise more money to compete and grow. Google just lost their rights to "First do no evil." because they are doing this first and it's evil. This hurts the web at least as much as Microsoft's browser monopoly did. Larry and Sergey I want you to think about how you would feel about this if you were starting Google today.

Freechoice 16y ago

No more Android for me or google. Hello Bing and stuff.

exception 16y ago

Net neutrality is a concept founded upon a fantasy. The idea that we should all get the same priority on the Internet is ridiculous. It has always been the case (and always will be the case), that the more money you have, the better services you can acquire. From the guy running a gaming server, through the hacker building a highly scalable network using Linode, CNN using Akamai for streaming media and Google building hundreds of data centers; we're all willing to pay for bandwidth or reduce latency. I'm not against the idea of network neutrality, quite the contrary; however, the gap between the aspiration and what goes on in practice is already too great. We're all players and it can never be unwound.

orblivion 16y ago
I agree. That's why we should keep it out of the law, since it's an unrealizable ideal, and just try to approximate it as much as we can. Egalitarianism is nice, but I don't think it's a moral imperative.

roadnottaken 16y ago

CNET is reporting the story quite differently: "As part of the deal, Verizon would agree not to selectively throttle Internet traffic through its pipes. That would not, however, apply to data traveling over its wireless network for mobile phones, the report says." http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20012703-260.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20012703-260.html This makes it sound like Google is still fighting the good fight... (via Slashdot)

megafotze 16y ago

don't be evil my ass

known 16y ago

Looks like Google is another Microsoft in the making.

ayameyamamoto 16y ago

Does anyone think this issue is about Google offering Verizon users a chance to use that SPDY protocol they invented?

api 16y ago

This sort of proves the point of the documentary film "The Corporation." Even if the owners, managers, shareholders, etc. of a corporation don't want to do slimy things, the system imposes a fiduciary responsibility on them to be slimy if doing so will make next quarter better.

ashishbharthi 16y ago

Google Public Policy twitter account just tweeted that "@NYTimes is wrong. We've not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet."

loewenskind 16y ago
Then why don't they make an official statement?

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]