6 ms·

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

by 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...
  - endlessvoid94 16y ago
    That's a bad analogy. Nobody would pay you to do that.
    - nkassis 16y ago
      pharma corps without regulation? I might need to stop watching cyberpunk movies.
      - gwern 16y ago
        Why would they bother? No money in ebola - rare, highly fatal, and seen only in the poorest places on earth.
        Devilboy 16y ago
        Bio-weapons division?
        gwern 16y ago
        Hardly any money in that, assuming it's even legal, and don't governments (quite sensibly) keep all that in-house anyway?
    - pyre 16y ago
      How so? The point was to present an example of taking short-term gains that will have an effect on long-term gains. If Google blindly pursues only short-term gains, they risk weakening their medium- and/or long-term prospects.
      - endlessvoid94 16y ago
        Because your short long term loss doesn't benefit anybody. The long term gain in google's case would be Verizon, but in your example, it's some evil corporation who just wants you to die. That's unrealistic.
    - 16y ago
- Ardit20 16y ago
  It is a good company because it solved a problem, related to us, and held itself to a high standard and we rightly attributed it good qualities because in its inception and even to today it has been a good force onto the world. The moment Google starts to focus on the money at the expense of other more noble principles, such as Don't Be Evil, the company will die a slow at first and then immediate death. Google was disruptive in its inception. It had and still has much support because it stood up to Microsoft. But now that it has paved the way and there is little difference between Google search and Yahoo or MSN, what keeps most searchers, especially in the tech community with google is its image. The moment they start doing some evil, such image is dead, and people will be on a look out for some other search provider.
  - rdtsc 16y ago
    I hope that is the case and not just us under-estimating its PR department's ability to manipulate us.
- houseabsolute 16y ago
  What boggles my mind is that you and everyone else here are getting your collective pants in a twist over an unconfirmed report from anonymous sources about something that frankly sounds rather unlikely considering Google's history of public statements and financial commitments on the subject. Surely there will be enough time for that after you actually know what Google and Verizon are trying to do, if anything.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - hiroaki 16y ago
    Your hunch was right. Google's just tweeted ( http://twitter.com/googlepubpolicy http://twitter.com/googlepubpolicy ) 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."
    - rdtsc 16y ago
      However they did meet with Verizon behind "closed doors" to agree on a common definition of what "net neutrality" is. Yes, it is not as infamatory as "let's implement something together and screw everyone else". > We remain committed to an open internet. Of course they do. No company we'll say - "we want to control the internet and everyone's access to it". They'll say somethig like "we want to expand more options for consumers", "we are helping deliver better content", and of course "we want an open internet". They are the ones being accusses of working out a deal behind consumers' back so their PR department will say something nice to soften the blow. The only way to figure it out is to wait and see what happens. You'll have to forgive me if I don't take Google's PR department's word for it.
- jimbokun 16y ago
  "If surrendering to the telecoms makes money then that's what they'll do." Surrendering to the telecoms leading to Google making more money seems very unlikely. Which is one reason to question the veracity of this report.
zitterbewegung 16y ago
Where is it written that google is the protector of the internet? Sure they could stand up to the telecoms but they have responsibilities to their shareholders also and their bottom line.
- orangecat 16y ago
  Their bottom line is hugely dependent on the goodwill that they've built up over several years, which will take a big hit if this story is accurate and the deal goes through. Switching default search engines is easy.
  - pyre 16y ago
    Microsoft/Bing could win themselves a ton of goodwill if they were to take the opposing stance to Google on this. (Though I question whether Microsoft leadership is savvy enough to capitalize on this opportunity.)
    - klenwell 16y ago
      Or a golden opportunity for Blekko -- if they can get the invites out fast enough: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/25568/ http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/25568/
- benologist 16y ago
  On the hearts of the million or two idiots that fuel tech blogs.
- jsz0 16y ago
  It's a projection for the types of people who like to believe in mottos ("Don't be evil", "Think Different", etc) but it's a double edged sword if they're going to ride that reputation (China, open standards, open platforms, etc) and selectively duck the responsibility at other times. You can't help but be disappointed for selfish reasons. It's like Superman saving you from a burning building only to let the Earth spiral into the Sun a few days later. Thanks a lot Superman.
moultano 16y ago
I think you are mistaken on who capitulated. This story is a lot more informative: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/08/google_and_verizon_have_come.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/08/google_and... 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.
- DannoHung 16y ago
  So the story is either one way around.... or the exact opposite. Great. Excellent. The fourth estate at work.
  - lallysingh 16y ago
    "Hey you -- you have a twitter account and an iPhone, you're our new lead tech reporter." Do they even know how bad they are at this?
grandalf 16y ago
This is Google finally realizing that the public is more afraid of Google than it is of not having net neutrality. A google/Verizon deal makes all the niche content players more likely to favor net neutrality over having to complete with Google content.
ergo98 16y ago
>Total capitulation on Google's part. The NY Times summary is exactly the opposite of reality -- Google negotiated to PREVENT a tiered internet, at least on landlines. What the hell has happened with Tech News (this is hardly the first time where the fourth estate has presented reality in a shockingly inaccurate fashion)? The incompetence is just extraordinary.

by jsz0 16y ago

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...
- endlessvoid94 16y ago
  That's a bad analogy. Nobody would pay you to do that.
  - nkassis 16y ago
    pharma corps without regulation? I might need to stop watching cyberpunk movies.
    - gwern 16y ago
      Why would they bother? No money in ebola - rare, highly fatal, and seen only in the poorest places on earth.
      - Devilboy 16y ago
        Bio-weapons division?
        gwern 16y ago
        Hardly any money in that, assuming it's even legal, and don't governments (quite sensibly) keep all that in-house anyway?
  - pyre 16y ago
    How so? The point was to present an example of taking short-term gains that will have an effect on long-term gains. If Google blindly pursues only short-term gains, they risk weakening their medium- and/or long-term prospects.
    - endlessvoid94 16y ago
      Because your short long term loss doesn't benefit anybody. The long term gain in google's case would be Verizon, but in your example, it's some evil corporation who just wants you to die. That's unrealistic.
  - 16y ago
Ardit20 16y ago
It is a good company because it solved a problem, related to us, and held itself to a high standard and we rightly attributed it good qualities because in its inception and even to today it has been a good force onto the world. The moment Google starts to focus on the money at the expense of other more noble principles, such as Don't Be Evil, the company will die a slow at first and then immediate death. Google was disruptive in its inception. It had and still has much support because it stood up to Microsoft. But now that it has paved the way and there is little difference between Google search and Yahoo or MSN, what keeps most searchers, especially in the tech community with google is its image. The moment they start doing some evil, such image is dead, and people will be on a look out for some other search provider.
- rdtsc 16y ago
  I hope that is the case and not just us under-estimating its PR department's ability to manipulate us.
houseabsolute 16y ago
What boggles my mind is that you and everyone else here are getting your collective pants in a twist over an unconfirmed report from anonymous sources about something that frankly sounds rather unlikely considering Google's history of public statements and financial commitments on the subject. Surely there will be enough time for that after you actually know what Google and Verizon are trying to do, if anything.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- hiroaki 16y ago
  Your hunch was right. Google's just tweeted ( http://twitter.com/googlepubpolicy http://twitter.com/googlepubpolicy ) 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."
  - rdtsc 16y ago
    However they did meet with Verizon behind "closed doors" to agree on a common definition of what "net neutrality" is. Yes, it is not as infamatory as "let's implement something together and screw everyone else". > We remain committed to an open internet. Of course they do. No company we'll say - "we want to control the internet and everyone's access to it". They'll say somethig like "we want to expand more options for consumers", "we are helping deliver better content", and of course "we want an open internet". They are the ones being accusses of working out a deal behind consumers' back so their PR department will say something nice to soften the blow. The only way to figure it out is to wait and see what happens. You'll have to forgive me if I don't take Google's PR department's word for it.
jimbokun 16y ago
"If surrendering to the telecoms makes money then that's what they'll do." Surrendering to the telecoms leading to Google making more money seems very unlikely. Which is one reason to question the veracity of this report.

zitterbewegung 16y ago

Where is it written that google is the protector of the internet? Sure they could stand up to the telecoms but they have responsibilities to their shareholders also and their bottom line.

orangecat 16y ago
Their bottom line is hugely dependent on the goodwill that they've built up over several years, which will take a big hit if this story is accurate and the deal goes through. Switching default search engines is easy.
- pyre 16y ago
  Microsoft/Bing could win themselves a ton of goodwill if they were to take the opposing stance to Google on this. (Though I question whether Microsoft leadership is savvy enough to capitalize on this opportunity.)
  - klenwell 16y ago
    Or a golden opportunity for Blekko -- if they can get the invites out fast enough: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/25568/ http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/25568/
benologist 16y ago
On the hearts of the million or two idiots that fuel tech blogs.
jsz0 16y ago
It's a projection for the types of people who like to believe in mottos ("Don't be evil", "Think Different", etc) but it's a double edged sword if they're going to ride that reputation (China, open standards, open platforms, etc) and selectively duck the responsibility at other times. You can't help but be disappointed for selfish reasons. It's like Superman saving you from a burning building only to let the Earth spiral into the Sun a few days later. Thanks a lot Superman.

moultano 16y ago

I think you are mistaken on who capitulated. This story is a lot more informative: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/08/google_and_verizon_have_come.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/08/google_and... 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.

DannoHung 16y ago
So the story is either one way around.... or the exact opposite. Great. Excellent. The fourth estate at work.
- lallysingh 16y ago
  "Hey you -- you have a twitter account and an iPhone, you're our new lead tech reporter." Do they even know how bad they are at this?

grandalf 16y ago

This is Google finally realizing that the public is more afraid of Google than it is of not having net neutrality. A google/Verizon deal makes all the niche content players more likely to favor net neutrality over having to complete with Google content.

ergo98 16y ago

>Total capitulation on Google's part. The NY Times summary is exactly the opposite of reality -- Google negotiated to PREVENT a tiered internet, at least on landlines. What the hell has happened with Tech News (this is hardly the first time where the fourth estate has presented reality in a shockingly inaccurate fashion)? The incompetence is just extraordinary.