10 ms·

Why Google Became A Carrier-Humping, Net Neutrality Surrender Monkey

yanw 16y ago
Google spokeswoman: “We have taken a backseat to no one in our support for an open internet. We offered this proposal in the spirit of compromise. Others might have done it differently, but we think locking in key enforceable protections for consumers is progress and preferable to no protection.” I have to agree, Google is getting flak here although they are the only company that stood for net neutrality. They are being pragmatic here and everyone is ignoring the good points in this agreement. Also being ignored the fact that this is non-binding agreement that is designed to speed the debate.
- gamble 16y ago
  This deal is just a fig leaf. Google supported net neutrality when it suited their business goals. The moment Android took off it became a non-issue for them. If anything, they should be taking more flak. Google's enjoyed an incredibly soft treatment by the press thanks to their positioning as a company that puts ethics before profits. Yet on the issues that matter, it's increasingly clear that Google's ethics are highly situational.
  - moultano 16y ago
    They succeeded in getting Verizon to agree to net neutrality on the wired internet. Isn't that a strict improvement over the status quo?
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - metachor 16y ago
      No it is not. The status quo is that no one has yet made any binding decisions, and the telecom operators will try to get away with what they can until the FCC slaps them down. Google just succeeded in getting Verizon to agree to net neutrality on the wired internet in exchange for removing any possibility of net neutrality on the wireless internet (which Google claims is the future of internet).
      - moultano 16y ago
        >in exchange for removing any possibility of net neutrality on the wireless internet (which Google claims is the future of internet). [citation needed] This is explicitly not true according to the text of the agreement. The agreement says that it is too early to determine whether net-neutrality provisions are necessary for wireless networks, because it's a newer market and there is much more competition.
        sprout 16y ago
        That kind of "let's wait and see how it looks until it evolves before we regulate" attitude is precisely what caused the current stagnation in the wired market. The market fundamentally is under heavy regulation; wireless can't work without heavy-handed regulation of who can use what spectrum. We can't just stop at that kind of draconian regulation (which is necessary) and say that a little thing like non-discriminatory access to your absolute monopoly is too much.
        moultano 16y ago
        Sure, but isn't it better to legislate net-neutrality for the wired internet than not do anything at all? If this was the only legislation that could conceivably pass, would you vote for it?
        btilly 16y ago
        However there are fundamental economic reasons why the wired market should lead to natural monopolies and the wireless market should lead to more competition. Therefore there is good reason to wait. Furthermore bandwidth is limited. The proposal is not what Google wants, it is what they were able to get Verizon to agree to. I read that clause as very much of an, "We agree to disagree, and agree that our areas of agreement are worth pursuing anyways."
      - ergo98 16y ago
        Google is not the government. Google is just one company. The way people are talking about this you would legitimately think that Google ran the tubes, or something. They don't. Google is at least getting a discussion going.
    - orangecat 16y ago
      http://xkcd.com/463/ http://xkcd.com/463/
  - yanw 16y ago
    That is an extremely naive view of things, Google is a publicly traded for profit company, any good or ethical maneuvers they make are just surplus, they tend to do it more than most, I suppose if they were completely rotten no one would criticize them this much as people would expect the worst.
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
    Could anyone explain the Android Net Neutrality link for me? Everything Google does goes over the internet. Youtube in particular needs high bandwidth and seems like the kind of thing that would be throttled to protect cable TV. Yet everyone in the media is obsessed with the Android link and claiming Google no longer cares about net neutrality as a result of Android. But not actually explaining why this makes any sense. Is it just because Verizon is pushing Android hardest out of the US carriers? Seems a bit weak.
- jsz0 16y ago
  I don't believe you can get into bed with a US telecom and stay clean. It's impossible.
  - megablast 16y ago
    Except for Apple, who have done very well. They have not compromised to most carrier concerns, you don't find an ATT logo on the iPhone, or dodgy software apps you can't remove, or hardware switched off. Apple has done more to change the carriers than anyone else. Sure, they have had to pull some apps (although both ATT and Apple deny it was due to the carrier).
    - doron 16y ago
      Apple has only one single carrier in the US, so how many carriers did they exactly change?. Did they start to sell unlocked GSM/CDMA phones to anyone who wanted? As the article states "ban cool apps for no real reason (Google Voice on the iPhone for one), cripple apps to protect business models (Skype on the iPhone) and outright ban data-heavy apps from third parties (Slingbox for the iPhone), all the while promoting their own app (MLB’s iPhone app)." Looks like compromise to me, all in its best interest of course.
      - megablast 16y ago
        Maybe you are forgetting what it would be like before Apple? Carriers would regularly disable bluetooth or downloading. You could only get apps from their store. You could only get ringtones from their store. etc... Apple changed all carriers, since they are less locked down. On Android, you can get apps from the google marketplace, not just the carrier store. Ringtones can be had easily.
        babblefrog 16y ago
        Nonsense. I had a windows mobile phone, and could do all of those things. In hindsight, windows mobile had a pretty awful user interface, but it wasn't apple that caused those things to happen.
- eschulte 16y ago
  Completely changing your stated principles on the importance of net neutrality and openness in the wireless sphere, because it suites your financial situation, is not "compromise" it's hypocrisy.
  - cma 16y ago
    In the U.S. companies can't have principles that don't suit their financial situation. If they try to, the board is exposed to shareholder class-action lawsuits.
    - doron 16y ago
      Exactly, the glaring problem here isn't that Google or Verizon make a deal that is beneficial to their shareholders. The problem is the complete ineptitude of the government to design regulatory law. In time perhaps we will view the failings of the FCC as the failure of MMS, I hope not.
    - aikinai 16y ago
      I was under the impression that Google put a special clause in their charter(?) that gave them special permission to make decisions that appear to go against their bottom line.
      - cma 16y ago
        I'm not aware of any such clause, are you thinking of "don't be evil"? What you may be thinking of is some of the weird voting rights arrangements: "In an unusual provision for a technology company, Google will create two classes of shares with different voting rights, a move that aims to guarantee that founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page will maintain decision-making authority" A clause like that doesn't affect the type of lawsuits I am talking about.
        aikinai 16y ago
        I think you're right; I can't seem to find anything that gives them special non-profit-seeking privilege. The only thing related is the "Don't be Evil" statement in their Owners Manual for Shareholders that states: "Don't be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served-as shareholders and in all other ways-by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains. This is an important aspect of our culture and is broadly shared within the company." I guess the exceptionally weak phrase "even if we forgo some short term gains" included in a non-legal document isn't really much protection.
- jboydyhacker 16y ago
  You don't think the large amount of Android share that is Verizon based had anything to do with coming to a deal here? A possibility perhaps? Oh and now that we know Google can do evil, just a little bit, can we go back to China please?
- parallax7d 16y ago
  yanw, the article points out what they had previously said before this comprimise. I like the old position, not the new "only partially completely incorrect" model. from a post on Google’s official blog in 2007: “The nation’s spectrum airwaves are not the birthright of any one company. They are a unique and valuable public resource that belong to all Americans. The FCC’s auction rules are designed to allow U.S. consumers — for the first time — to use their handsets with any network they desire, and and use the lawful software applications of their choice.” Read More http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/why-google-became-a-carrier-humping-net-neutrality-surrender-monkey/#ixzz0wFiyWefE http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/why-google-became-a-c...
agnokapathetic 16y ago
Unfortunately it seems no one cares about corporate ethics c.f. Facebook. I guess my only option is to buy a few shares of GOOG.
lkjhgfhjk 16y ago
We didn't need no net neutrality in Canada. We have two network providers and you have a free choice to get your phone, cable and wireless from whichever one of them operates in your town. Sure we don't get 3G on our kindles and we got the iPhone a year after uzbekistan and we pay twice as much as you do for the data - but that's our choice as Canadian consumers.
- pkaler 16y ago
  3 network providers: Rogers, Bell, Telus.
  - lkjhgfhjk 16y ago
    And by ruthlessly competing with each other () they achieve the highest profitabilty in the world http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/09/04/tech-profit.html http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/09/04/tech-profit.ht... they do compete ruthlessly, you should see the golf games when their chief execs get together at their price fixing meetings.
- msbarnett 16y ago
  Except we do get 3G on our Kindles, we got the iPhone years ago, and our 6 gig data plan is a better deal than AT&T's 2 gig top-end plan
  - gamble 16y ago
    > Except we do get 3G on our Kindles For a $2 per book fee.
etherael 16y ago
Google gave the market the option to go for a completely open environment with the Nexus One, and in the words of this wired article what did it get in return? "Not cool enough." The phone is brilliant, but the market went elsewhere with it's carrier locked subsidised junk models. That's just a market reality, like it or not. Google tried to "do the right thing" and the market went somewhere else. Making all these points about what they could've done instead which basically amounted to "become a direct competitor with Apple on the retail level" are not realistic considering everything we know about Google and it's views and practices on direct end user support. If the market wants to shoot itself in the foot by choosing shitty products, that's their cross to bear. It's not reasonable to place the blame on one of the few companies that provided an out and had it thrown squarely back in their face. The only problem I fear is that due to the failure of the Nexus One they won't invest in a Nexus Two and the Android ecosystem will become a swirling morass of telco crippled product, thus ending differentiation between it and the competing iOS ecosystem. The article does however make an interesting point, HP might do better with webOS, they are accustomed to end user hand holding and playing the retail / marketing game. If they can push a truly open ecosystem and manage to be successful in units moved as well, they may well end up being what Android might have been if the market had let it go in the direction Google had clearly wanted it to go from inception.
- aresant 16y ago
  Not cool enough was hardly the problem - count instead: 1 - the phone came with waaaay substandard service - no live customer service, barely service via email 2 - no chance for the wide consumer market to play with the phone or interact with the phone with online sales only 3 - mixed reviews from the professional tech review community So while I agree google made an attempt it felt to me much more like a half assed try in the context of this thread
  - etherael 16y ago
    Points 1 & 2 are what I was referring to when I pointed out that google just doesn't work that way, they're not going to open a plexiglass cube in the local megamall and handhold largely clueless end users via their version of the genius bar, it's simply not in their DNA. I acknowledge that that is in fact apparently an essential part of the path to market success in this arena as evidenced by the sales numbers, but I'm personally underwhelmed by it and simultaneously completely grok why Google has no interest in doing this. Point 3 is news to me, every review I read on the N1 prior to purchasing one was a "this beats the snot out of the iPhone" level heaping of glowing praise, and now having had one myself for two months I see why; it's completely true. It's the Ubuntu story in a phone form factor all over again; having the clearly superior product does not mean that you end up with significant market share or business success.
jobeirne 16y ago
FTA: ``Google could have fought. It had plenty of tools at its disposal. It could have made phones that worked on all of those networks, and then sued those companies if they didn’t allow users to get fair plans.'' Does this sound at all like a well-thought-out, reasonable, or mature course of action to suggest that Google could have taken? I don't think so. What exactly does ``a fair plan'' mean? $0.50 less for unlimited texting? $10 less for wireless broadband? FTA: ``That’s fancy language for: Verizon and the nation’s telecoms have yet again won, Google officially became a net neutrality surrender monkey, and you — as an American — have lost.'' Sounds to me like Wired is taking a shot at riding a wave of childish rage (and trying to get fat along the way).
- Retric 16y ago
  A 15$ a month price reduction because they are not subsidizing a phone by ~400$?
  - orangecat 16y ago
    T-Mobile does that; their unsubsidized (and contract-free!) plans are $20/month less. Of course neither Google nor T-Mobile ever bothered to tell anybody about that.
einarvollset 16y ago
What? A big corporate behemoth like GOOG being a hypocrite? How utterly, utterly shocking.
jamesseda 16y ago
It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material
rottencupcakes 16y ago
When did our culture shift to this point that everyone puts their problems on the government? Everyone complains about Apple's closed iPhone ecosystem, then pesters the government to condone jailbreaking and unlocking, which go against the iPhone's terms of service. Comcast is caught throttling bittorent, and instead of switching providers to satellite or Verizon or anything, everything goes to the government and demands regulation on net neutrality. Since when did it become the american standard to complain to the government when you don't agree with the terms of service instead of just doing it the old fashioned way and speaking with your money? If high speed internet is so important to you and Comcast is the only carrier in your area, then you are at their mercy - they paid money to expand their service to your region and service you - you don't get to demand that they service you in the most favorable way. Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it to, and appealing to legislation just seems wrong. P.S. If you disagree with me and believe that legislation limiting the contacts that can be signed between two parties is necessary, please reply and explain why instead of downvoting an alternate point of view. This isn't reddit.
- peterwwillis 16y ago
  the case in question involves limited licensed spectrums and companies which have legal monopolies over who can use their network and how. it's like bellsouth requiring you to use an Apple for broadband and comcast requiring Microsoft. it's anti-competitive and unfair to both consumers and any company that may want to compete due to the harsh cost of either entering the market or for a consumer to pay for the expensive new devices or contracts. considering this is the most ubiquitous method of communication in the nation (and probably the world) this is something every government should regulate.
- SamReidHughes 16y ago
  > If you disagree with me and believe that legislation limiting the contacts that can be signed between two parties is necessary, please reply and explain why instead of downvoting an alternate point of view. It's perfectly legimate to downvote people who post without thinking. If you want criticisms of anarcho-capitalism, go find them on Wikipedia. The article was not about the problems you have with human behavior.
mralbie 16y ago
Is anyone honestly surprised by this? Google played into the telecoms' hands, they created the first viable competitor to the iPhone and gave it to the telecoms saying "do whatever you want with this, feel free to modify it any way you want". Google's vision of a market in which handsets are independent from carriers is absolutely poisonous to the industry's business model. Even though the iPhone is very successful I don't think verizon or sprint are interested at all in a world where they are just a "dumb pipe", they won't allow it. Google lost this war because of their commitment to openness.
- ergo98 16y ago
  I'm not quite understanding the "gave it to telecoms" part - The telecoms don't make phones. Companies like Motorola, Samsung, and HTC do. And while Google "gave" it to them, they've all dumped incredible amounts of engineering hours into Android and their derivatives -- any illusion that they just ran a Ubuntu install on their Galaxy S and that was it is utterly asinine around parts like this. Seriously, the "giving it away" bit is dumb, and while it sells on the non-technical sites, it is an embarrassment on HN.
  - mralbie 16y ago
    I find your lack of courtesy to be the embarrassment to HN. I was simply try to the make the point that by pushing an open source OS (as in manufacturers could alter the OS to include anything the carriers insisted) Google blindsided itself. They expected to create something that would change the handset/carrier/customer relationship, instead they just enabled the next generation of the same thing. The Nexus One is evidence of this.
  - mralbie 16y ago
    The point I was trying to make is pretty much this: http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/hiner/?p=5855 http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/hiner/?p=5855
spot 16y ago
"It could have made phones that worked on all of those networks, and then sued those companies if they didn’t allow users to get fair plans." the networks require different antennas. no phone can work on all of them and be competitive. google got verizon to agree to neutrality on the wire and can continue to fight for fair treatment on wireless. i call this progress.
mattmaroon 16y ago
The comments about phone exclusivity have nothing whatsoever to do with wireless net neutrality, but they do illustrate how everyone seems to want the wireless data and voice providers to turn themselves into valueless, interchangeable commodities fighting on margins much like major airlines. You really can't blame them for not wanting to play that game. Time and again other industries have shown that they will all lose. The exclusive phones and two year contracts are what's keeping their industry at a reasonable profit margin. If I were running Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, etc, I probably would be pro net neutrality, as a lot of the consumers of wireless data will care about it and it will be a valuable feature, but I wouldn't be in a hurry to compete only on price and coverage either. If the people writing about this topic could only see past their loathing of the providers to be fair about it, and exclude off-topic rants about the providers trying to actually make a profit, they might further the discussion a lot better.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
icarus_drowning 16y ago
This article is absolutely ridiculous. Wired should be ashamed -- it is sensationalist, unrealistic, and absolutely dishonest in its characterization of the Google/Verizon policy proposal. The salient mistakes: 1. "Google and Verizon announced Monday, as part of their bilateral net neutrality trade agreement they want Congress to ratify, that open wireless rules were unneccessary. “We both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wire-line world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly,” the joint statement said. “In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless-broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the [Net Neutrality] wire-line principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement.” That’s fancy language for: Verizon and the nation’s telecoms have yet again won, Google officially became a net neutrality surrender monkey, and you — as an American — have lost." The proposal[1] specifically notes that the wireless exemption is time-limited-- it is noted that "at this time" these rules would not apply. The proposal includes an annual review of this position, and the transparency requirement attempts to ensure that this review could be conducted fairly and with good information. 2. "Google could have fought. It had plenty of tools at its disposal. It could have made phones that worked on all of those networks, and then sued those companies if they didn’t allow users to get fair plans." Really? And destroyed any hope of Android ending up on those carriers in the future? Does anyone really think this is a sane proposition? (Does anyone believe that Google wouldn't be painted as a litigious bully by the very same critics throwing around such absurd language as "carrier-humping surrender monkeys"?) 3. "The FTC would have had a reason to pry into unfair business practices. Google could have eschewed online-only selling and partnered with the many independently owned mobile phone shops around the country, so that potential customers could play with the device before plunking down $500." The reasons for the Nexus One's failures are complex, but I certainly think that one of them was that many consumers don't want to pay $500 for a device, and are more than happy to sign multi-year contracts in order to get a subsidy on a smartphone. 4. "Google easily could have attached conditions to all Google-powered Android phones, banning carrier software that can’t be removed just as easily as any other app. (Try getting rid of Sprint’s Nascar app on the EVO — if you don’t have root, it can’t be done.). These conditions also could have banned the blocking of Android 2.2’s built-in ability to be a Wi-Fi hot spot, which both Sprint and Verizon have crippled." I know the "open" crowd isn't a fan of these management policies-- I'm not either-- but it seems hypocritical to assert that certain kinds of customizations shouldn't be allowed on open-source software. The author essentially wants Google to be the arbiter of what "openness" means, and moreover, to apply an unequal standard to customers versus carriers. Boo-hoo, right? Verizon certainly can deal with getting the short end of that stick. But the way they would most likely do that is to drop Android altogether. At which point no one gets to customize it at all. I am continually mystified by the legions of Google critics who expect that, because they are huge, they can do whatever they want-- completely ignoring the fact that they are huge because they often don't do what they want to. Android is a success precisely because it balances openness with pragmatism. At times I disagree on the balance that Google has chosen, but I don't for a minute believe that Google can simply ignore reality and force carriers to accept a model of the internet that they fundamentally disagree with. We can argue about the merits of particular Google decisions (like, say, the wireless exemption in the current policy proposal), but I don't think we get anywhere by mis-characterizing them and using the kind of polarizing, childish language like "carrier humping surrender monkeys". [1]: http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.google.com/googleblogs/pdfs/verizon_google_legislative_framework_proposal_081010.pdf http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.google.com/goog...
ghettobillgates 16y ago
The Nexus One launch and seemed ghetto and not something I would have expected from Google.
jpdbaugh 16y ago
So from moral prospective is it better to support Android or iOS at this point? Its a fine case of damned if you do damned if you don't.
- j79 16y ago
  True. IF I understand the implications of the deal between Google and Verizon correctly (and to be honest, there's a good chance I don't...), I would argue that what they're doing is far worse than Steve Jobs saying, "You're holding it wrong." At least, the actions of Apple (and Jobs) is limited directly to developers and consumers who choose to use (or develop for) their products. Verizon and Google? This affects all of us. Edit: But to answer your question: Let's support the little guy and go webOS!

yanw 16y ago

Google spokeswoman: “We have taken a backseat to no one in our support for an open internet. We offered this proposal in the spirit of compromise. Others might have done it differently, but we think locking in key enforceable protections for consumers is progress and preferable to no protection.” I have to agree, Google is getting flak here although they are the only company that stood for net neutrality. They are being pragmatic here and everyone is ignoring the good points in this agreement. Also being ignored the fact that this is non-binding agreement that is designed to speed the debate.

gamble 16y ago
This deal is just a fig leaf. Google supported net neutrality when it suited their business goals. The moment Android took off it became a non-issue for them. If anything, they should be taking more flak. Google's enjoyed an incredibly soft treatment by the press thanks to their positioning as a company that puts ethics before profits. Yet on the issues that matter, it's increasingly clear that Google's ethics are highly situational.
- moultano 16y ago
  They succeeded in getting Verizon to agree to net neutrality on the wired internet. Isn't that a strict improvement over the status quo?
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - metachor 16y ago
    No it is not. The status quo is that no one has yet made any binding decisions, and the telecom operators will try to get away with what they can until the FCC slaps them down. Google just succeeded in getting Verizon to agree to net neutrality on the wired internet in exchange for removing any possibility of net neutrality on the wireless internet (which Google claims is the future of internet).
    - moultano 16y ago
      >in exchange for removing any possibility of net neutrality on the wireless internet (which Google claims is the future of internet). [citation needed] This is explicitly not true according to the text of the agreement. The agreement says that it is too early to determine whether net-neutrality provisions are necessary for wireless networks, because it's a newer market and there is much more competition.
      - sprout 16y ago
        That kind of "let's wait and see how it looks until it evolves before we regulate" attitude is precisely what caused the current stagnation in the wired market. The market fundamentally is under heavy regulation; wireless can't work without heavy-handed regulation of who can use what spectrum. We can't just stop at that kind of draconian regulation (which is necessary) and say that a little thing like non-discriminatory access to your absolute monopoly is too much.
        moultano 16y ago
        Sure, but isn't it better to legislate net-neutrality for the wired internet than not do anything at all? If this was the only legislation that could conceivably pass, would you vote for it?
        btilly 16y ago
        However there are fundamental economic reasons why the wired market should lead to natural monopolies and the wireless market should lead to more competition. Therefore there is good reason to wait. Furthermore bandwidth is limited. The proposal is not what Google wants, it is what they were able to get Verizon to agree to. I read that clause as very much of an, "We agree to disagree, and agree that our areas of agreement are worth pursuing anyways."
    - ergo98 16y ago
      Google is not the government. Google is just one company. The way people are talking about this you would legitimately think that Google ran the tubes, or something. They don't. Google is at least getting a discussion going.
  - orangecat 16y ago
    http://xkcd.com/463/ http://xkcd.com/463/
- yanw 16y ago
  That is an extremely naive view of things, Google is a publicly traded for profit company, any good or ethical maneuvers they make are just surplus, they tend to do it more than most, I suppose if they were completely rotten no one would criticize them this much as people would expect the worst.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  Could anyone explain the Android Net Neutrality link for me? Everything Google does goes over the internet. Youtube in particular needs high bandwidth and seems like the kind of thing that would be throttled to protect cable TV. Yet everyone in the media is obsessed with the Android link and claiming Google no longer cares about net neutrality as a result of Android. But not actually explaining why this makes any sense. Is it just because Verizon is pushing Android hardest out of the US carriers? Seems a bit weak.
jsz0 16y ago
I don't believe you can get into bed with a US telecom and stay clean. It's impossible.
- megablast 16y ago
  Except for Apple, who have done very well. They have not compromised to most carrier concerns, you don't find an ATT logo on the iPhone, or dodgy software apps you can't remove, or hardware switched off. Apple has done more to change the carriers than anyone else. Sure, they have had to pull some apps (although both ATT and Apple deny it was due to the carrier).
  - doron 16y ago
    Apple has only one single carrier in the US, so how many carriers did they exactly change?. Did they start to sell unlocked GSM/CDMA phones to anyone who wanted? As the article states "ban cool apps for no real reason (Google Voice on the iPhone for one), cripple apps to protect business models (Skype on the iPhone) and outright ban data-heavy apps from third parties (Slingbox for the iPhone), all the while promoting their own app (MLB’s iPhone app)." Looks like compromise to me, all in its best interest of course.
    - megablast 16y ago
      Maybe you are forgetting what it would be like before Apple? Carriers would regularly disable bluetooth or downloading. You could only get apps from their store. You could only get ringtones from their store. etc... Apple changed all carriers, since they are less locked down. On Android, you can get apps from the google marketplace, not just the carrier store. Ringtones can be had easily.
      - babblefrog 16y ago
        Nonsense. I had a windows mobile phone, and could do all of those things. In hindsight, windows mobile had a pretty awful user interface, but it wasn't apple that caused those things to happen.
eschulte 16y ago
Completely changing your stated principles on the importance of net neutrality and openness in the wireless sphere, because it suites your financial situation, is not "compromise" it's hypocrisy.
- cma 16y ago
  In the U.S. companies can't have principles that don't suit their financial situation. If they try to, the board is exposed to shareholder class-action lawsuits.
  - doron 16y ago
    Exactly, the glaring problem here isn't that Google or Verizon make a deal that is beneficial to their shareholders. The problem is the complete ineptitude of the government to design regulatory law. In time perhaps we will view the failings of the FCC as the failure of MMS, I hope not.
  - aikinai 16y ago
    I was under the impression that Google put a special clause in their charter(?) that gave them special permission to make decisions that appear to go against their bottom line.
    - cma 16y ago
      I'm not aware of any such clause, are you thinking of "don't be evil"? What you may be thinking of is some of the weird voting rights arrangements: "In an unusual provision for a technology company, Google will create two classes of shares with different voting rights, a move that aims to guarantee that founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page will maintain decision-making authority" A clause like that doesn't affect the type of lawsuits I am talking about.
      - aikinai 16y ago
        I think you're right; I can't seem to find anything that gives them special non-profit-seeking privilege. The only thing related is the "Don't be Evil" statement in their Owners Manual for Shareholders that states: "Don't be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served-as shareholders and in all other ways-by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains. This is an important aspect of our culture and is broadly shared within the company." I guess the exceptionally weak phrase "even if we forgo some short term gains" included in a non-legal document isn't really much protection.
jboydyhacker 16y ago
You don't think the large amount of Android share that is Verizon based had anything to do with coming to a deal here? A possibility perhaps? Oh and now that we know Google can do evil, just a little bit, can we go back to China please?
parallax7d 16y ago
yanw, the article points out what they had previously said before this comprimise. I like the old position, not the new "only partially completely incorrect" model. from a post on Google’s official blog in 2007: “The nation’s spectrum airwaves are not the birthright of any one company. They are a unique and valuable public resource that belong to all Americans. The FCC’s auction rules are designed to allow U.S. consumers — for the first time — to use their handsets with any network they desire, and and use the lawful software applications of their choice.” Read More http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/why-google-became-a-carrier-humping-net-neutrality-surrender-monkey/#ixzz0wFiyWefE http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/why-google-became-a-c...

agnokapathetic 16y ago

Unfortunately it seems no one cares about corporate ethics c.f. Facebook. I guess my only option is to buy a few shares of GOOG.

lkjhgfhjk 16y ago

We didn't need no net neutrality in Canada. We have two network providers and you have a free choice to get your phone, cable and wireless from whichever one of them operates in your town. Sure we don't get 3G on our kindles and we got the iPhone a year after uzbekistan and we pay twice as much as you do for the data - but that's our choice as Canadian consumers.

pkaler 16y ago
3 network providers: Rogers, Bell, Telus.
- lkjhgfhjk 16y ago
  And by ruthlessly competing with each other () they achieve the highest profitabilty in the world http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/09/04/tech-profit.html http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/09/04/tech-profit.ht... they do compete ruthlessly, you should see the golf games when their chief execs get together at their price fixing meetings.
msbarnett 16y ago
Except we do get 3G on our Kindles, we got the iPhone years ago, and our 6 gig data plan is a better deal than AT&T's 2 gig top-end plan
- gamble 16y ago
  > Except we do get 3G on our Kindles For a $2 per book fee.

etherael 16y ago

Google gave the market the option to go for a completely open environment with the Nexus One, and in the words of this wired article what did it get in return? "Not cool enough." The phone is brilliant, but the market went elsewhere with it's carrier locked subsidised junk models. That's just a market reality, like it or not. Google tried to "do the right thing" and the market went somewhere else. Making all these points about what they could've done instead which basically amounted to "become a direct competitor with Apple on the retail level" are not realistic considering everything we know about Google and it's views and practices on direct end user support. If the market wants to shoot itself in the foot by choosing shitty products, that's their cross to bear. It's not reasonable to place the blame on one of the few companies that provided an out and had it thrown squarely back in their face. The only problem I fear is that due to the failure of the Nexus One they won't invest in a Nexus Two and the Android ecosystem will become a swirling morass of telco crippled product, thus ending differentiation between it and the competing iOS ecosystem. The article does however make an interesting point, HP might do better with webOS, they are accustomed to end user hand holding and playing the retail / marketing game. If they can push a truly open ecosystem and manage to be successful in units moved as well, they may well end up being what Android might have been if the market had let it go in the direction Google had clearly wanted it to go from inception.

aresant 16y ago
Not cool enough was hardly the problem - count instead: 1 - the phone came with waaaay substandard service - no live customer service, barely service via email 2 - no chance for the wide consumer market to play with the phone or interact with the phone with online sales only 3 - mixed reviews from the professional tech review community So while I agree google made an attempt it felt to me much more like a half assed try in the context of this thread
- etherael 16y ago
  Points 1 & 2 are what I was referring to when I pointed out that google just doesn't work that way, they're not going to open a plexiglass cube in the local megamall and handhold largely clueless end users via their version of the genius bar, it's simply not in their DNA. I acknowledge that that is in fact apparently an essential part of the path to market success in this arena as evidenced by the sales numbers, but I'm personally underwhelmed by it and simultaneously completely grok why Google has no interest in doing this. Point 3 is news to me, every review I read on the N1 prior to purchasing one was a "this beats the snot out of the iPhone" level heaping of glowing praise, and now having had one myself for two months I see why; it's completely true. It's the Ubuntu story in a phone form factor all over again; having the clearly superior product does not mean that you end up with significant market share or business success.

jobeirne 16y ago

FTA: ``Google could have fought. It had plenty of tools at its disposal. It could have made phones that worked on all of those networks, and then sued those companies if they didn’t allow users to get fair plans.'' Does this sound at all like a well-thought-out, reasonable, or mature course of action to suggest that Google could have taken? I don't think so. What exactly does ``a fair plan'' mean? $0.50 less for unlimited texting? $10 less for wireless broadband? FTA: ``That’s fancy language for: Verizon and the nation’s telecoms have yet again won, Google officially became a net neutrality surrender monkey, and you — as an American — have lost.'' Sounds to me like Wired is taking a shot at riding a wave of childish rage (and trying to get fat along the way).

Retric 16y ago
A 15$ a month price reduction because they are not subsidizing a phone by ~400$?
- orangecat 16y ago
  T-Mobile does that; their unsubsidized (and contract-free!) plans are $20/month less. Of course neither Google nor T-Mobile ever bothered to tell anybody about that.

einarvollset 16y ago

What? A big corporate behemoth like GOOG being a hypocrite? How utterly, utterly shocking.

jamesseda 16y ago

It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material

rottencupcakes 16y ago

When did our culture shift to this point that everyone puts their problems on the government? Everyone complains about Apple's closed iPhone ecosystem, then pesters the government to condone jailbreaking and unlocking, which go against the iPhone's terms of service. Comcast is caught throttling bittorent, and instead of switching providers to satellite or Verizon or anything, everything goes to the government and demands regulation on net neutrality. Since when did it become the american standard to complain to the government when you don't agree with the terms of service instead of just doing it the old fashioned way and speaking with your money? If high speed internet is so important to you and Comcast is the only carrier in your area, then you are at their mercy - they paid money to expand their service to your region and service you - you don't get to demand that they service you in the most favorable way. Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it to, and appealing to legislation just seems wrong. P.S. If you disagree with me and believe that legislation limiting the contacts that can be signed between two parties is necessary, please reply and explain why instead of downvoting an alternate point of view. This isn't reddit.

peterwwillis 16y ago
the case in question involves limited licensed spectrums and companies which have legal monopolies over who can use their network and how. it's like bellsouth requiring you to use an Apple for broadband and comcast requiring Microsoft. it's anti-competitive and unfair to both consumers and any company that may want to compete due to the harsh cost of either entering the market or for a consumer to pay for the expensive new devices or contracts. considering this is the most ubiquitous method of communication in the nation (and probably the world) this is something every government should regulate.
SamReidHughes 16y ago
> If you disagree with me and believe that legislation limiting the contacts that can be signed between two parties is necessary, please reply and explain why instead of downvoting an alternate point of view. It's perfectly legimate to downvote people who post without thinking. If you want criticisms of anarcho-capitalism, go find them on Wikipedia. The article was not about the problems you have with human behavior.

mralbie 16y ago

Is anyone honestly surprised by this? Google played into the telecoms' hands, they created the first viable competitor to the iPhone and gave it to the telecoms saying "do whatever you want with this, feel free to modify it any way you want". Google's vision of a market in which handsets are independent from carriers is absolutely poisonous to the industry's business model. Even though the iPhone is very successful I don't think verizon or sprint are interested at all in a world where they are just a "dumb pipe", they won't allow it. Google lost this war because of their commitment to openness.

ergo98 16y ago
I'm not quite understanding the "gave it to telecoms" part - The telecoms don't make phones. Companies like Motorola, Samsung, and HTC do. And while Google "gave" it to them, they've all dumped incredible amounts of engineering hours into Android and their derivatives -- any illusion that they just ran a Ubuntu install on their Galaxy S and that was it is utterly asinine around parts like this. Seriously, the "giving it away" bit is dumb, and while it sells on the non-technical sites, it is an embarrassment on HN.
- mralbie 16y ago
  I find your lack of courtesy to be the embarrassment to HN. I was simply try to the make the point that by pushing an open source OS (as in manufacturers could alter the OS to include anything the carriers insisted) Google blindsided itself. They expected to create something that would change the handset/carrier/customer relationship, instead they just enabled the next generation of the same thing. The Nexus One is evidence of this.
- mralbie 16y ago
  The point I was trying to make is pretty much this: http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/hiner/?p=5855 http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/hiner/?p=5855

spot 16y ago

"It could have made phones that worked on all of those networks, and then sued those companies if they didn’t allow users to get fair plans." the networks require different antennas. no phone can work on all of them and be competitive. google got verizon to agree to neutrality on the wire and can continue to fight for fair treatment on wireless. i call this progress.

mattmaroon 16y ago

The comments about phone exclusivity have nothing whatsoever to do with wireless net neutrality, but they do illustrate how everyone seems to want the wireless data and voice providers to turn themselves into valueless, interchangeable commodities fighting on margins much like major airlines. You really can't blame them for not wanting to play that game. Time and again other industries have shown that they will all lose. The exclusive phones and two year contracts are what's keeping their industry at a reasonable profit margin. If I were running Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, etc, I probably would be pro net neutrality, as a lot of the consumers of wireless data will care about it and it will be a valuable feature, but I wouldn't be in a hurry to compete only on price and coverage either. If the people writing about this topic could only see past their loathing of the providers to be fair about it, and exclude off-topic rants about the providers trying to actually make a profit, they might further the discussion a lot better.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

icarus_drowning 16y ago

This article is absolutely ridiculous. Wired should be ashamed -- it is sensationalist, unrealistic, and absolutely dishonest in its characterization of the Google/Verizon policy proposal. The salient mistakes: 1. "Google and Verizon announced Monday, as part of their bilateral net neutrality trade agreement they want Congress to ratify, that open wireless rules were unneccessary. “We both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wire-line world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly,” the joint statement said. “In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless-broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the [Net Neutrality] wire-line principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement.” That’s fancy language for: Verizon and the nation’s telecoms have yet again won, Google officially became a net neutrality surrender monkey, and you — as an American — have lost." The proposal[1] specifically notes that the wireless exemption is time-limited-- it is noted that "at this time" these rules would not apply. The proposal includes an annual review of this position, and the transparency requirement attempts to ensure that this review could be conducted fairly and with good information. 2. "Google could have fought. It had plenty of tools at its disposal. It could have made phones that worked on all of those networks, and then sued those companies if they didn’t allow users to get fair plans." Really? And destroyed any hope of Android ending up on those carriers in the future? Does anyone really think this is a sane proposition? (Does anyone believe that Google wouldn't be painted as a litigious bully by the very same critics throwing around such absurd language as "carrier-humping surrender monkeys"?) 3. "The FTC would have had a reason to pry into unfair business practices. Google could have eschewed online-only selling and partnered with the many independently owned mobile phone shops around the country, so that potential customers could play with the device before plunking down $500." The reasons for the Nexus One's failures are complex, but I certainly think that one of them was that many consumers don't want to pay $500 for a device, and are more than happy to sign multi-year contracts in order to get a subsidy on a smartphone. 4. "Google easily could have attached conditions to all Google-powered Android phones, banning carrier software that can’t be removed just as easily as any other app. (Try getting rid of Sprint’s Nascar app on the EVO — if you don’t have root, it can’t be done.). These conditions also could have banned the blocking of Android 2.2’s built-in ability to be a Wi-Fi hot spot, which both Sprint and Verizon have crippled." I know the "open" crowd isn't a fan of these management policies-- I'm not either-- but it seems hypocritical to assert that certain kinds of customizations shouldn't be allowed on open-source software. The author essentially wants Google to be the arbiter of what "openness" means, and moreover, to apply an unequal standard to customers versus carriers. Boo-hoo, right? Verizon certainly can deal with getting the short end of that stick. But the way they would most likely do that is to drop Android altogether. At which point no one gets to customize it at all. I am continually mystified by the legions of Google critics who expect that, because they are huge, they can do whatever they want-- completely ignoring the fact that they are huge because they often don't do what they want to. Android is a success precisely because it balances openness with pragmatism. At times I disagree on the balance that Google has chosen, but I don't for a minute believe that Google can simply ignore reality and force carriers to accept a model of the internet that they fundamentally disagree with. We can argue about the merits of particular Google decisions (like, say, the wireless exemption in the current policy proposal), but I don't think we get anywhere by mis-characterizing them and using the kind of polarizing, childish language like "carrier humping surrender monkeys". [1]: http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.google.com/googleblogs/pdfs/verizon_google_legislative_framework_proposal_081010.pdf http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.google.com/goog...

ghettobillgates 16y ago

The Nexus One launch and seemed ghetto and not something I would have expected from Google.

jpdbaugh 16y ago

So from moral prospective is it better to support Android or iOS at this point? Its a fine case of damned if you do damned if you don't.

j79 16y ago
True. IF I understand the implications of the deal between Google and Verizon correctly (and to be honest, there's a good chance I don't...), I would argue that what they're doing is far worse than Steve Jobs saying, "You're holding it wrong." At least, the actions of Apple (and Jobs) is limited directly to developers and consumers who choose to use (or develop for) their products. Verizon and Google? This affects all of us. Edit: But to answer your question: Let's support the little guy and go webOS!