6 ms·

Tech Companies, Google Sold You Out

80 points by malbiniak 16y ago

Marticus 16y ago
Doesn't seem like it - managed services will be handled different ways by different ISPs - which I would argue would allow (eventually) for smaller ISPs to say "well yeah, we offer x, y, and z and AT&T doesn't do that" and have a decent market share if x, y, and z are widely demanded. Even the article's writer says that "after the conference call and reading the agreement, I’m not sure there’s much to say beyond the fact that this agreement basically keeps the network neutrality situation the same."
- jdrock 16y ago
  I feel like you're trivializing the barriers to first match basic services provided by ISP giants and then provide competitive differences on top of that. One of the reasons people are clamoring for net neutrality legislation is that the relevant markets don't have significant competition to make neutrality happen naturally.
  - eavc 16y ago
    Absolutely. We have two options for high speed internet here. AT&T and Comcast. Comcast is the only option that gets me above 10Mbps. The only alternative on the horizon? AT&T's new service. At least that'll be a viable alternative to Comcast, but it's still hardly what one could call variety. Where do I live? Atlanta, in the city limits, less than three miles from the heart of the city.
    - stcredzero 16y ago
      When/where available try out Sprint 4G/Clear if you can live with 6mbps.
      - pyre 16y ago
        I've heard conflicting reports of reception and/or speed with Clear. Clear apparently isn't good for things like gaming (horrible latency) and/or large file transfers.
        stcredzero 16y ago
        I can download 175 MB or 4 GB bittorrent downloads just fine. It's getting things uploaded which takes a little persistence. Latency is horrible. I consider this a plus -- no temptation.
        illumin8 16y ago
        An internet connection with horrible latency is like a car that won't drive up hills. I seriously couldn't work on a connection where my terminal sessions lag too far behind my typing.
        nl 16y ago
        And this is why the proposal leaves wireless out. It may be possible to use technical measures (QoS etc) to reduce the latency problems on wireless for applications that need low latency (eg Voip). Do we really want to regulate now to rule this out? I have very mixed feelings on this.
  - Marticus 16y ago
    Understandable, but the point I was trying to make more than anything was simply that Google "wasn't" actually trying to hate us, not really. The title biasied before I even hopped.
spinchange 16y ago
Getting really tired of conspiritorial hand flapping posts from people who have no telecom / network engineering perspective. I give both of these companies some credit for using their leadership positions to at least offer a framework to the industry and public at large - something the FCC and all the other carriers heretofore have been completely unable to do. Of course that doesn't jive with the whole, "they're trying to destory the internet" meme.
- jdrock 16y ago
  While Stacey (the author) isn't an engineer, she's probably talked to and gotten the perspectives of many more people in this space than most of us here.
  - jonknee 16y ago
    And she also makes more money when writing about controversy. No one's going to make their page view bonus by saying everything is fine.
  - spinchange 16y ago
    I can't comment if that is probably is the case or not, because all I have is this post, and it's not cited here. What I do see is fear mongering built almost exclusively on "what they didn't say," "what ifs," and worst-case conjecture. And I can appreciate those fears, but I also know they conveniently get more pageviews than addressing QoS, or the reality that traffic prioritzation must happen on some level (by type, not source) to accomodate delivering all these services. It strikes me that the alternative to two pretty "pro-user" companies proposing a framework to deal with an unresolved set of technical issues is to have less open, less "pro user" companies deal with it with their lobbyists behind closed legislative doors. At least initially, I'll trust the devil I know.
    - navyrain 16y ago
      I'm really interested why you consider traffic prioritization a foregone conclusion. I can imagine a scenario where FCC bans prioritization of any form, and the market rewards the company who actually builds out the highest capacity network, not the company who most effectively throttles traffic.
plnewman 16y ago
It doesn't sit well with me that this discussion is seemingly being led by corporate, rather than public, interests. I would like to see Julius Genachoski reign the debate in and push a policy through. It also should be pointed out that Google's proposal is a _proposal_ and not yet written policy.
- sp332 16y ago
  Is a federal agent with no skin in the game and appointed by Congress really so much more trustworthy than publicly-traded corporations with customers and shareholders? I just don't see why you assume that Google and Verizon are acting counter to the interests of the public, but you trust Genachowski. Edit: publicly-owned -> publicly-traded
  - plnewman 16y ago
    Notice that I chose the phrase "reign in the debate". And I would say that the FCC has sufficient "skin in the game". Google/Verizon, to their credit, have put out at least some of their proposal for public consumption. I just don't see how a policy put forward by a corporate entity (or alliance in this case) could be anything but biased to that entity.
    - sp332 16y ago
      Just because it benefits them doesn't mean it's going to hurt me. Google + Verizon employ over a quarter million people (not even counting other shareholders and customers). Any internet policy that benefits them will probably benefit me.
  - chadmalik 16y ago
    Uh, you stated the answer yourself. Corporations are accountable to their shareholders. They maximize profit, that is the only thing they do, and that is in fact a legal obligation that public company boards can be sued for breaching. You call them "publicly-owned" corporations but that is incorrect, they are in fact PRIVATELY OWNED. The government including regulatory agencies like the FCC have a responsibility to take public interest into account - yes it is never done perfectly - but the FACT is that the decision-making process for governmental entities is entirely different than it is for private corporations.
navyrain 16y ago
The division between wireless and wired seems really artificial to me. Yes, the current state of technology means a megabyte over air is a good margin more expensive than over wire, but I don't believe this is worth codifying into law. Personally, I'd like to see a restriction on what can be called "Internet". An internet connection in my mind implies neutrality. If your network only provides a subset of the content on the internet, you shouldn't be able to call it "Internet", but instead call it something obviously lesser, much in the same spirit that requires Cheez Wiz be called "cheese product".
- klous 16y ago
  Pedantic note: Since 1973, Cheese Wiz or similar no longer requires the word "imitation" ..."Thanks to the FDA's willingness, post-1973, to let food makers freely alter the identity of "traditional foods that everyone knows" without having to call them imitations." Source: http://www.alternet.org/health/77330?page=entire http://www.alternet.org/health/77330?page=entire
- msg 16y ago
  My impression was that the distinction between wireless and wired had less to do with cost and more to do with interference.
gamble 16y ago
So what exactly does google do that justifies their our-shit-doesn't-stink reputation? It seems like they behave exactly like any other self-interested major corporation when the chips are down. They were for censorship in China before they were against it. They were for net neutrality until Verizon offered to cut them a deal. Are there any cases where "don't be evil" made a bit of difference on a non-trivial issue?
- nanairo 16y ago
  I think back in the days there were a lot of cases. And also Google felt like the underdog taking on the hated Microsoft. Then one day we woke up and Google was massive, and doing just as much underhanded/questionable policies as the next guy.
- tensafefrogs 16y ago
  > They were for censorship in China before they were against it. No. Google tolerated it, but was never "for" censorship. > They were for net neutrality until Verizon offered to cut them a deal. What? Google has always been against net neutrality. In fact, this new policy proposal helps net neutrality. The main thing people seem to be mad about is that it doesn't go far enough. So how exactly does that make them evil again?
  - dschobel 16y ago
    Your second point is patently wrong: http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html
  - gamble 16y ago
    What is the difference between taking part in the scheme and being 'for it', exactly? Google was perfectly free not to participate, but they made the call that the growth potential of China was worth being in partnership with a repressive regime. As for your other point, Google was the most prominent company supporting net neutrality. Three years ago they were prepared to spend billions buying spectrum to prevent exactly the kind of deal they're pimping today.
yanw 16y ago
Tech companies? what exactly did those tech companies do during this whole debate, nothing, they stood idly by and let Google try to do something, they have only themselves to blame not Google.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
mirkules 16y ago
I couldn't help but notice this happened the same week ex-Senator Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens died. What a strange coincidence. (non-sarcastic)

80 points by malbiniak 16y ago

Doesn't seem like it - managed services will be handled different ways by different ISPs - which I would argue would allow (eventually) for smaller ISPs to say "well yeah, we offer x, y, and z and AT&T doesn't do that" and have a decent market share if x, y, and z are widely demanded. Even the article's writer says that "after the conference call and reading the agreement, I’m not sure there’s much to say beyond the fact that this agreement basically keeps the network neutrality situation the same."

jdrock 16y ago
I feel like you're trivializing the barriers to first match basic services provided by ISP giants and then provide competitive differences on top of that. One of the reasons people are clamoring for net neutrality legislation is that the relevant markets don't have significant competition to make neutrality happen naturally.
- eavc 16y ago
  Absolutely. We have two options for high speed internet here. AT&T and Comcast. Comcast is the only option that gets me above 10Mbps. The only alternative on the horizon? AT&T's new service. At least that'll be a viable alternative to Comcast, but it's still hardly what one could call variety. Where do I live? Atlanta, in the city limits, less than three miles from the heart of the city.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    When/where available try out Sprint 4G/Clear if you can live with 6mbps.
    - pyre 16y ago
      I've heard conflicting reports of reception and/or speed with Clear. Clear apparently isn't good for things like gaming (horrible latency) and/or large file transfers.
      - stcredzero 16y ago
        I can download 175 MB or 4 GB bittorrent downloads just fine. It's getting things uploaded which takes a little persistence. Latency is horrible. I consider this a plus -- no temptation.
        illumin8 16y ago
        An internet connection with horrible latency is like a car that won't drive up hills. I seriously couldn't work on a connection where my terminal sessions lag too far behind my typing.
        nl 16y ago
        And this is why the proposal leaves wireless out. It may be possible to use technical measures (QoS etc) to reduce the latency problems on wireless for applications that need low latency (eg Voip). Do we really want to regulate now to rule this out? I have very mixed feelings on this.
- Marticus 16y ago
  Understandable, but the point I was trying to make more than anything was simply that Google "wasn't" actually trying to hate us, not really. The title biasied before I even hopped.

spinchange 16y ago

Getting really tired of conspiritorial hand flapping posts from people who have no telecom / network engineering perspective. I give both of these companies some credit for using their leadership positions to at least offer a framework to the industry and public at large - something the FCC and all the other carriers heretofore have been completely unable to do. Of course that doesn't jive with the whole, "they're trying to destory the internet" meme.

jdrock 16y ago
While Stacey (the author) isn't an engineer, she's probably talked to and gotten the perspectives of many more people in this space than most of us here.
- jonknee 16y ago
  And she also makes more money when writing about controversy. No one's going to make their page view bonus by saying everything is fine.
- spinchange 16y ago
  I can't comment if that is probably is the case or not, because all I have is this post, and it's not cited here. What I do see is fear mongering built almost exclusively on "what they didn't say," "what ifs," and worst-case conjecture. And I can appreciate those fears, but I also know they conveniently get more pageviews than addressing QoS, or the reality that traffic prioritzation must happen on some level (by type, not source) to accomodate delivering all these services. It strikes me that the alternative to two pretty "pro-user" companies proposing a framework to deal with an unresolved set of technical issues is to have less open, less "pro user" companies deal with it with their lobbyists behind closed legislative doors. At least initially, I'll trust the devil I know.
  - navyrain 16y ago
    I'm really interested why you consider traffic prioritization a foregone conclusion. I can imagine a scenario where FCC bans prioritization of any form, and the market rewards the company who actually builds out the highest capacity network, not the company who most effectively throttles traffic.

plnewman 16y ago

It doesn't sit well with me that this discussion is seemingly being led by corporate, rather than public, interests. I would like to see Julius Genachoski reign the debate in and push a policy through. It also should be pointed out that Google's proposal is a _proposal_ and not yet written policy.

sp332 16y ago
Is a federal agent with no skin in the game and appointed by Congress really so much more trustworthy than publicly-traded corporations with customers and shareholders? I just don't see why you assume that Google and Verizon are acting counter to the interests of the public, but you trust Genachowski. Edit: publicly-owned -> publicly-traded
- plnewman 16y ago
  Notice that I chose the phrase "reign in the debate". And I would say that the FCC has sufficient "skin in the game". Google/Verizon, to their credit, have put out at least some of their proposal for public consumption. I just don't see how a policy put forward by a corporate entity (or alliance in this case) could be anything but biased to that entity.
  - sp332 16y ago
    Just because it benefits them doesn't mean it's going to hurt me. Google + Verizon employ over a quarter million people (not even counting other shareholders and customers). Any internet policy that benefits them will probably benefit me.
- chadmalik 16y ago
  Uh, you stated the answer yourself. Corporations are accountable to their shareholders. They maximize profit, that is the only thing they do, and that is in fact a legal obligation that public company boards can be sued for breaching. You call them "publicly-owned" corporations but that is incorrect, they are in fact PRIVATELY OWNED. The government including regulatory agencies like the FCC have a responsibility to take public interest into account - yes it is never done perfectly - but the FACT is that the decision-making process for governmental entities is entirely different than it is for private corporations.

navyrain 16y ago

The division between wireless and wired seems really artificial to me. Yes, the current state of technology means a megabyte over air is a good margin more expensive than over wire, but I don't believe this is worth codifying into law. Personally, I'd like to see a restriction on what can be called "Internet". An internet connection in my mind implies neutrality. If your network only provides a subset of the content on the internet, you shouldn't be able to call it "Internet", but instead call it something obviously lesser, much in the same spirit that requires Cheez Wiz be called "cheese product".

klous 16y ago
Pedantic note: Since 1973, Cheese Wiz or similar no longer requires the word "imitation" ..."Thanks to the FDA's willingness, post-1973, to let food makers freely alter the identity of "traditional foods that everyone knows" without having to call them imitations." Source: http://www.alternet.org/health/77330?page=entire http://www.alternet.org/health/77330?page=entire
msg 16y ago
My impression was that the distinction between wireless and wired had less to do with cost and more to do with interference.

gamble 16y ago

So what exactly does google do that justifies their our-shit-doesn't-stink reputation? It seems like they behave exactly like any other self-interested major corporation when the chips are down. They were for censorship in China before they were against it. They were for net neutrality until Verizon offered to cut them a deal. Are there any cases where "don't be evil" made a bit of difference on a non-trivial issue?

nanairo 16y ago
I think back in the days there were a lot of cases. And also Google felt like the underdog taking on the hated Microsoft. Then one day we woke up and Google was massive, and doing just as much underhanded/questionable policies as the next guy.
tensafefrogs 16y ago
> They were for censorship in China before they were against it. No. Google tolerated it, but was never "for" censorship. > They were for net neutrality until Verizon offered to cut them a deal. What? Google has always been against net neutrality. In fact, this new policy proposal helps net neutrality. The main thing people seem to be mad about is that it doesn't go far enough. So how exactly does that make them evil again?
- dschobel 16y ago
  Your second point is patently wrong: http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html
- gamble 16y ago
  What is the difference between taking part in the scheme and being 'for it', exactly? Google was perfectly free not to participate, but they made the call that the growth potential of China was worth being in partnership with a repressive regime. As for your other point, Google was the most prominent company supporting net neutrality. Three years ago they were prepared to spend billions buying spectrum to prevent exactly the kind of deal they're pimping today.

yanw 16y ago

Tech companies? what exactly did those tech companies do during this whole debate, nothing, they stood idly by and let Google try to do something, they have only themselves to blame not Google.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

mirkules 16y ago

I couldn't help but notice this happened the same week ex-Senator Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens died. What a strange coincidence. (non-sarcastic)