5 ms·

This is a pretty terrible article: the author basically mis-represents what actually happened, and then dismisses any possible legitimate motive for Google doi

by akeefer 16y ago

This is a pretty terrible article: the author basically mis-represents what actually happened, and then dismisses any possible legitimate motive for Google doing what it did with no argument, merely by asserting that such a motive can't possible exist. Maybe, just maybe, Google thinks that massive government regulation of the still-nascent wireless internet market will do more harm than good at this point, and that we should consider the question later once we have actual empirical data about what works and what doesn't? Is that really such an illogical position to adopt?

jshen 16y ago
"that really such an illogical position to adopt?" yes, because once giant corporations make a tiered wireless internet take hold there is absolutely no chance of untiering it.
- akeefer 16y ago
  You might disagree with it, but it's not illogical. There's a big, big difference between saying "I don't agree with Google" and "there's no possible logical reason for their position, therefore it must be evil." What you're expressing above is one possible interpretation of how the future could unfold, but different, intelligent people can easily disagree about that.
  - jshen 16y ago
    I don't think an intelligent person would believe that once a tiered internet were in place that there is a high probability of it changing. When google says "don't be evil", I take that to mean they wouldn't promote an internet where the traffic from my site may be forced to take a backseat to the traffic from Giant Corporation because I can't give a big enough kickback to verizon. Given google's "don't be evil" mantra it's illogical for them to promote a tiered internet since such a promotion is contrary to their mantra.
    - akeefer 16y ago
      They weren't promoting a tiered internet by advocating it as a good thing; they were against regulating things just yet. Those are two very, very different things.
      - jshen 16y ago
        forgive the hyperbole, I know these two things aren't the same degree of bad, but it's the same logic. this is like saying that someone isn't promoting racism just yet, they are just against the government regulating businesses so that they can't deny service to someone based on race. They may be two different means, but they come to the same end.
    - nl 16y ago
      I don't think an intelligent person would believe that once a tiered internet were in place that there is a high probability of it changing. There are a number of historical precedence that provide some evidence that it could change. In the early days of internet access companies like AOL charged different rates for access to their (non-internet) network and the real internet. That went away. In non-US markets tiered access is quite common, but hasn't proved to be a massive problem. In Australia (where bandwidth caps are common), most ISPs provide "non-metered" access to some sites (gaming servers, download mirrors, the national broadcaster), and many mobile access providers run promotions for "free facebook" etc. Generally, consumers find these things annoying to keep track of and switch over to a higher-cost plan where they don't need to worry about them. Some very price-conscious consumers (eg, students) benefit a lot from them at the cost of some convenience. Gradually companies seem to be dropping the more complex of these plans because of the customer confusion it causes. (I guess I should insert some witty reply about how my belief in this possibility precludes the possibility of me being intelligent. Unfortunately I'm going to have to rely on there being a question as to if my lack of intelligence is causal WRT my lack of witty response, or vice-versa. Sorry).
      - gamble 16y ago
        Net neutrality isn't about charging consumers a different price depending on what services they use. Providers like Verizon want to exploit their control of the infrastructure to extort kickbacks from web-based businesses. Take VOIP, for example. It won't be VOIP as a whole that receives priority access, but Skype VOIP - and in exchange, Skype will kick a portion of their revenue back to Verizon. Verizon gets a bit of juice and Skype doesn't have to worry about competing with other VOIP providers. It will be invisible to users. A similar process happened in the video rental business when Blockbuster signed a deal with the movie studios to pay less upfront for videos, while kicking back some of their rental revenue to the studios. Whereas an independent rental store might pay $100 for a tape, Blockbuster paid almost nothing - the independents went out of business, and video rental became a Blockbuster-dominated monoculture.
- moultano 16y ago
  So, because Google and Verizon didn't come to an agreement on wireless internet, that's equivalent to Google supporting a tiered wireless internet? That seems like a pretty big jump to me.
- nl 16y ago
  It's possible that in the wireless space tiered access might make sense. I'm not a wireless engineer but my understanding is that wireless access suffers from overcrowding a lot more than wired access simply because the overall bandwith within a given frequency band is a lot lower than a bundle of optical fibers. Given this limitation I think we should be very careful in saying that a given solution should not be allowed. I can imagine scenarios where tiered pricing models would be very beneficial to most people. For example, imagine a business setting up wireless security video cams. Thoughtlessly, they set them up to record and send video in HD. A few of those pointed at a rapidly changing scene (eg, a road) can chew though a lot of bandwidth. The owner of those cams doesn't care - why should they? They just pay a flat rate and the fact that everyone else's access is bad isn't their problem. If an access provider could charge extra for that traffic then it would give the cam owner motivation to fix the problem. (Yes, there are other solutions - a price per Gb of traffic is an obvious one. But my point is that I'm not convinced other options should be outlawed yet)
  - macrael 16y ago
    But I think you are confusing things. There is no question anywhere as to whether people who use more data can be charged more for that use. The fact that most home plans are all you can eat has nothing to do with net neutrality. So in your example, hopefully the security camera company would be charged a higher fee than a competing company who streamed non HD video. Youtube pays a hell of a lot more to hook up to the internet than I do. The question is whether Verizon can charge a separate fee to prioritize one company's traffic over another. My understanding is that this recommendation partially closes that door for wired traffic but leaves it wide open for wireless traffic. Now fledgling startup security video hooks up their cameras to the web and find their bandwidth artificially restricted compared to the entrenched competition because they aren't paying for the super deluxe plan, or because Verizon has an exclusivity agreement with the entrenched player, or whatever. That is what seems to be left possible in wireless land with this recommendation, and that is frightening.
    - nl 16y ago
      I understand your argument. Did you see my line Yes, there are other solutions - a price per Gb of traffic is an obvious one. But my point is that I'm not convinced other options should be outlawed yet? My point is that it may make sense - and be good for consumers - to deprioritize and/or discourage some kinds of usage over wireless. http://danweinreb.org/blog/google-and-verizon-a-new-hope http://danweinreb.org/blog/google-and-verizon-a-new-hope references the story http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Government-IT/The-Truth-About-Google-Verizon-and-Net-Neutrality-371606/ http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Government-IT/The-Truth-About-Googl.... I hadn't read this when I made my original post, but it makes a much more compelling argument based on the same ideas. It makes the point that for VOIP to work properly over wireless you can't have jittery delivery. One way to solve that it to use QOS to increase the priority of that in comparison to video. That isn't "neutral" access, but it is good consumers.
- btilly 16y ago
  Somehow we started with a tiered wired internet (see, for instance, how AOL worked back in the mid-90s) and now for all intents and purposes have an untiered wired internet. I suspect Google has faith in the ability of previously unknown players to create compelling new content in the common. And once you have compelling new content in the common, no ISP can long succeed that fails to provide decent access to said common. The worst outcome from the wireless question mark is a revisiting of the net neutrality debate, with the successful example of the wired variant to spur the debate.
- thebigshane 16y ago
  there is absolutely no chance of untiering it That's a pretty strong statement. Why is there absolutely no chance?
DrJokepu 16y ago
As much as I dislike government regulation, I dislike "corporate innovation" (in the bad sense) much more.
nanairo 16y ago
Maybe not, but that's not what the Google-Verizon letter says. It does not suggest that massive government regulation (or in fact any regulation: no need to turn it into a dichotomy) will do more harm than good. Their point is that it's unnecessary.

by akeefer 16y ago

jshen 16y ago

"that really such an illogical position to adopt?" yes, because once giant corporations make a tiered wireless internet take hold there is absolutely no chance of untiering it.

akeefer 16y ago
You might disagree with it, but it's not illogical. There's a big, big difference between saying "I don't agree with Google" and "there's no possible logical reason for their position, therefore it must be evil." What you're expressing above is one possible interpretation of how the future could unfold, but different, intelligent people can easily disagree about that.
- jshen 16y ago
  I don't think an intelligent person would believe that once a tiered internet were in place that there is a high probability of it changing. When google says "don't be evil", I take that to mean they wouldn't promote an internet where the traffic from my site may be forced to take a backseat to the traffic from Giant Corporation because I can't give a big enough kickback to verizon. Given google's "don't be evil" mantra it's illogical for them to promote a tiered internet since such a promotion is contrary to their mantra.
  - akeefer 16y ago
    They weren't promoting a tiered internet by advocating it as a good thing; they were against regulating things just yet. Those are two very, very different things.
    - jshen 16y ago
      forgive the hyperbole, I know these two things aren't the same degree of bad, but it's the same logic. this is like saying that someone isn't promoting racism just yet, they are just against the government regulating businesses so that they can't deny service to someone based on race. They may be two different means, but they come to the same end.
  - nl 16y ago
    I don't think an intelligent person would believe that once a tiered internet were in place that there is a high probability of it changing. There are a number of historical precedence that provide some evidence that it could change. In the early days of internet access companies like AOL charged different rates for access to their (non-internet) network and the real internet. That went away. In non-US markets tiered access is quite common, but hasn't proved to be a massive problem. In Australia (where bandwidth caps are common), most ISPs provide "non-metered" access to some sites (gaming servers, download mirrors, the national broadcaster), and many mobile access providers run promotions for "free facebook" etc. Generally, consumers find these things annoying to keep track of and switch over to a higher-cost plan where they don't need to worry about them. Some very price-conscious consumers (eg, students) benefit a lot from them at the cost of some convenience. Gradually companies seem to be dropping the more complex of these plans because of the customer confusion it causes. (I guess I should insert some witty reply about how my belief in this possibility precludes the possibility of me being intelligent. Unfortunately I'm going to have to rely on there being a question as to if my lack of intelligence is causal WRT my lack of witty response, or vice-versa. Sorry).
    - gamble 16y ago
      Net neutrality isn't about charging consumers a different price depending on what services they use. Providers like Verizon want to exploit their control of the infrastructure to extort kickbacks from web-based businesses. Take VOIP, for example. It won't be VOIP as a whole that receives priority access, but Skype VOIP - and in exchange, Skype will kick a portion of their revenue back to Verizon. Verizon gets a bit of juice and Skype doesn't have to worry about competing with other VOIP providers. It will be invisible to users. A similar process happened in the video rental business when Blockbuster signed a deal with the movie studios to pay less upfront for videos, while kicking back some of their rental revenue to the studios. Whereas an independent rental store might pay $100 for a tape, Blockbuster paid almost nothing - the independents went out of business, and video rental became a Blockbuster-dominated monoculture.
moultano 16y ago
So, because Google and Verizon didn't come to an agreement on wireless internet, that's equivalent to Google supporting a tiered wireless internet? That seems like a pretty big jump to me.
nl 16y ago
It's possible that in the wireless space tiered access might make sense. I'm not a wireless engineer but my understanding is that wireless access suffers from overcrowding a lot more than wired access simply because the overall bandwith within a given frequency band is a lot lower than a bundle of optical fibers. Given this limitation I think we should be very careful in saying that a given solution should not be allowed. I can imagine scenarios where tiered pricing models would be very beneficial to most people. For example, imagine a business setting up wireless security video cams. Thoughtlessly, they set them up to record and send video in HD. A few of those pointed at a rapidly changing scene (eg, a road) can chew though a lot of bandwidth. The owner of those cams doesn't care - why should they? They just pay a flat rate and the fact that everyone else's access is bad isn't their problem. If an access provider could charge extra for that traffic then it would give the cam owner motivation to fix the problem. (Yes, there are other solutions - a price per Gb of traffic is an obvious one. But my point is that I'm not convinced other options should be outlawed yet)
- macrael 16y ago
  But I think you are confusing things. There is no question anywhere as to whether people who use more data can be charged more for that use. The fact that most home plans are all you can eat has nothing to do with net neutrality. So in your example, hopefully the security camera company would be charged a higher fee than a competing company who streamed non HD video. Youtube pays a hell of a lot more to hook up to the internet than I do. The question is whether Verizon can charge a separate fee to prioritize one company's traffic over another. My understanding is that this recommendation partially closes that door for wired traffic but leaves it wide open for wireless traffic. Now fledgling startup security video hooks up their cameras to the web and find their bandwidth artificially restricted compared to the entrenched competition because they aren't paying for the super deluxe plan, or because Verizon has an exclusivity agreement with the entrenched player, or whatever. That is what seems to be left possible in wireless land with this recommendation, and that is frightening.
  - nl 16y ago
    I understand your argument. Did you see my line Yes, there are other solutions - a price per Gb of traffic is an obvious one. But my point is that I'm not convinced other options should be outlawed yet? My point is that it may make sense - and be good for consumers - to deprioritize and/or discourage some kinds of usage over wireless. http://danweinreb.org/blog/google-and-verizon-a-new-hope http://danweinreb.org/blog/google-and-verizon-a-new-hope references the story http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Government-IT/The-Truth-About-Google-Verizon-and-Net-Neutrality-371606/ http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Government-IT/The-Truth-About-Googl.... I hadn't read this when I made my original post, but it makes a much more compelling argument based on the same ideas. It makes the point that for VOIP to work properly over wireless you can't have jittery delivery. One way to solve that it to use QOS to increase the priority of that in comparison to video. That isn't "neutral" access, but it is good consumers.
btilly 16y ago
Somehow we started with a tiered wired internet (see, for instance, how AOL worked back in the mid-90s) and now for all intents and purposes have an untiered wired internet. I suspect Google has faith in the ability of previously unknown players to create compelling new content in the common. And once you have compelling new content in the common, no ISP can long succeed that fails to provide decent access to said common. The worst outcome from the wireless question mark is a revisiting of the net neutrality debate, with the successful example of the wired variant to spur the debate.
thebigshane 16y ago
there is absolutely no chance of untiering it That's a pretty strong statement. Why is there absolutely no chance?

DrJokepu 16y ago

As much as I dislike government regulation, I dislike "corporate innovation" (in the bad sense) much more.

nanairo 16y ago

Maybe not, but that's not what the Google-Verizon letter says. It does not suggest that massive government regulation (or in fact any regulation: no need to turn it into a dichotomy) will do more harm than good. Their point is that it's unnecessary.