9 ms·
A paper trail of betrayal: Google's net neutrality collapse
- plinkplonk 16y agoFrom a comment on the article. "You can't absorb all those people from Microsoft and not get infected by the same mindset. ". I wouldn't be surprised at all if this initiative were being driven by an "acquired" (set of) VP s. DoubleClick maybe? Sounds right up their alley.
- Setsuna 16y agoSetsuna's law : "As an online discussion about Google/Apple grows longer, the probability of a comment comparing Microsoft to evil approaches 1."
- kirubakaran 16y agoYou've now compared Microsoft to Hitler :-)
- angelbob 16y agoGodwin's law says it's time for everybody to go home now.
- stanleydrew 16y agostanleydrew's law: as any online discussion about anything grows longer, the probability of any particular comment appearing approaches one.
- endtime 16y agoI'm not sure that's true - certain comments negate the need for others. For example, if I eventually get around to mentioning my mother's maiden name, the probability of the question "What is your mother's maiden name?" decreases.
- carllerche 16y agoHave you ever actually taken part of an online discussion?
- endtime 16y agoAre you just being cynical, or are you intentionally negating my "theorem" by asking a question that is implicitly answered by the fact that you were able to ask it? If the latter...ha.
- diggum 16y agoInteresting that you brought that up. What IS your mother's maiden name? (Also, I need the name of your first pet, and your high school mascot, if you don't mind.)
- endtime 16y agoStick around long enough and you're likely to find out. ;)
- Sephr 16y agosephr's law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of sephr's law being mentioned approaches one."
- billswift 16y agoOnly strictly true as the length of the discussion approaches infinity.
- dieterrams 16y agoThe ensuing discussion has completely failed to add to the thread in any way, and now it's taking up all this real estate at the top. For future threads, please refrain from indulging in this sort of thing.
- Aaronontheweb 16y agoGoogle's always done what's in its best interest - it's not like they were some pure entity that was contaminated by evil talent they acquired from somewhere else.
- scorpion032 16y agoIt's easy to dismiss any good deed as "Everybody acts in their own interest" "Organizing the world's information for _everybody_ to access" seems as benevolent as it can get. Taking care of your employees by providing facilities only confirms the point of view. PS: I am not commenting about, how Google is now. I liked what someone else said it yesterday, "Creating a new successful social network is like starting a new night club"
- anamax 16y ago> "Organizing the world's information for _everybody_ to access" seems as benevolent as it can get. Except that Google doesn't claim to organize the world's information - there's plenty of stuff that they intentionally avoid. Also, Google doesn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. Would you think that a company that charged you $1 for each search was benevolent? If not, Google's benevolence is due to either charging less or charging someone else - which is it? I don't place much value on benevolence - most of the world's horror stories are due to folks claiming that they were trying to "do good", but Google is not benevolent.
- scorpion032 16y ago"benevolence" does not mean "doing it for the sake of some one else". It is more like, "doing what is right; right for me and right for others"
- anamax 16y ago> "benevolence" does not mean "doing it for the sake of some one else". It is more like, "doing what is right; right for me and right for others" My sources, which include http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benevolence http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benevolence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolence disagree. What are your sources?
- shadowfox 16y agoEverything bad has to be somebody else's fault
- chopsueyar 16y agoWhy would Google want to put the United States at such a disadvatage?
- raganwald 16y agoWhy would companies like Wal-Mart build an entire business around despoiling American companies and shipping billions of dollars to America's only serious economic and military threat? Capitalism is the theory that the worst people, acting from their worst motives, will somehow produce the most good. --Blum
- reedlaw 16y agoHow has Wal-Mart despoiled American companies? Shipping billions of dollars to China certainly wasn't a free gift.
- grandalf 16y agoThis comment is misguided on a variety of levels: 1) Wal-Mart offers huge benefits to consumers, who can make ends meet (or work less hours) because of the substantial savings. Wal Mart employees are among the happiest and most satisfied in their economic stratum. 2) How is a trading partner an economic threat? China represents billions of consumers to buy American products and services. 3) If you think China is a military threat, you are paying too much attention to GOP propaganda. China's biggest problem is modernizing China without causing revolution. China has been a loyal and valuable trading partner for the US for decades, and the typical Chinese or American person has no desire for war whatsoever. 4) Capitalism is the accidental synchronization of peoples' needs and wants in a way that results in the most overall freedom and the most overall prosperity (of any system yet discovered by mankind). Are you seriously under the impression that "worst motives" don't exist in other economic systems? Sorry but I don't look at a postal or DMV clerk and admire their lofty motives.
- raganwald 16y agoYour response appears to make an assumption I do not hold as true, namely that conditions we observe are a steady economic state. In other words, if we observe people shopping at Wal-Mart and they appear to be healthier and happier today, that this has always been the case and will always be the case. I believe instead that many economic phenomena offer temporary advantages at the expense of far greater long-term disadvantages. A trivial example would be the recent housing bubble. We had a certain credit environment which led to people buying a lot of homes, which appeared to lead to great prosperity, and all was well until the bubble burst. In the case of Wal-Mart, my personal and unfounded opinion is that it is a symptom of American (and by this I include Canada) economic decline. It's all very nice now, but as the factories close and the jobs dry up, they are not being replaced. China's billions of consumers might buy iPhones. Maybe. But if they do, how many software designers are needed in California? That being said, I am not agitating for a change from Capitalism or that we close Wal-Mart. I was responding to a comment asking why Google might do something to disadvantage America. My point was that corporations do things to disadvantage nations all the time. Does this mean we should get rid of Capitalism? I'm not saying that. Does this mean that Capitalism overall is harmful? I'm not saying that either. I think Wal-Mart is an example of something harmful that corporations do, that's all.
- icarus_drowning 16y agoWhat I think is missing from articles like this are clear suggestions on how else to compromise with telcos and the FCC. The latter party has already had significant trouble in their attempts to enforce neutrality, and telcos have fought it vigorously. It seems clear that some sort of compromise was worth inspecting. Whether or not you agree with the Verizon/Google deal, it is worth criticizing it realistically (I thought the EFF's response is the best so far), rather than using charged language like "A paper trail of betrayal".
- Ardit20 16y agoWhy should there be any compromise with the telecos?
- icarus_drowning 16y agoWhy shouldn't there be?
- chadmalik 16y agoBecause their goal is to disadvantage internet properties they don't own or tax and turn the internet into something more like cable TV?
- icarus_drowning 16y agoOn the contrary, their goal is to make money for their shareholders. At this time, we are worried that they will do so by disadvantaging internet properties they don't own. But the answer to that doesn't by neccessity mean that some reasonable compromise is a bad thing.
- Ardit20 16y agoWell the compromise is hardly reasonable. Still, you can not answer a question with a question. Why should there be any compromise? Verizon's goal and that of the public contradict each other fundamentally. The public votes in the politicians and votes them out, thus is immensely more powerful than Vrizon, thus why compromise at all?
- yanw 16y agoFrom a comment there: It seems like everyone forgot the meaning of words like "negotiation", "compromise" and "unbinding-agreement", other tech companies weren't fighting with Google for net neutrality, in fact they left them to handle the teleco fury on their own, and now that they have got some sort of agreement on the subject people are ignoring the good bits and feel that Google owes them something, which is ridiculous.
- rtrunck 16y agoI think the anti-google anger arrises because many people didn't expect Google to compromise on something that Google, previously, gave the impression of being so important.
- sliverstorm 16y agoExpecting them to be able to get away without any compromise is naive. They are a company, not the supreme ruler. Thus I fall back on my grandma's old adage; a good compromise leaves nobody happy.
- jleader 16y agoSo how unhappy are the wireless companies?
- Terretta 16y agoHere, use our mobile OS. We're all about open. Ahoy, our mobile OS is outselling others? Look over there, stuff with wires is still open.
- danudey 16y agoI think the anti-Google anger arises because people misinterpreted Google's pro-consumer stance as a principled one, rather than opportunistic pandering. They're no worse than most other companies in terms of what they're doing, but they branded themselves heroes to the internet; now that it's in their best interests to go against their previous stance people feel like they've been sold a bill of goods.
- Gormo 16y agoThis is much ado about nothing. What's more evil: using compromise and negotiation as a means to move the situation incrementally in your desired direction, or sacrificing practical success just to maintain an unyielding commitment to ideology?
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- roc 16y agoIn what way does the stated agreement move the situation incrementally forward? Google certainly claims that it's compromise to improve the current situation, but I don't see a single proposal that doesn't have gigantic exemptions, exceptions and loopholes.
- btilly 16y agoHaving Verizon agree to the consumer protections are a move forward. They are the only telco to have so agreed, and several others have violated them.
- roc 16y agoThey've always agreed that the consumer needs to be protected. All the ISPs have. They've just disagreed with the FCC on: 1. how to protect them 2. who to protect them from 3. who decides what's good and bad. Their previous position was: 1. trust us with QoS 2. bad users/apps 3. the ISP itself Their new position is: 1. trust us with QoS 2. bad users/apps 3. a consortium of ISPs Which is worse, if anything. Previously they were pushing an edge-network QoS strategy position that could be countered by competition. Now they're pushing a position of de-facto collusion across the industry, to implement their brand of QoS end-to-end.
- shadowfox 16y agoThat may not have a simple answer.
- rickmb 16y ago
- nkassis 16y agoOne thing I don't get is, what would be wrong if Verizon decided to prioritize VoIP packets as a group. That's a good thing. What about video content, also a good thing. These are the things that Google I believe is talking about in the exceptions. That is not to say Verizon would do any of this properly but I still thing net neutrality must take into consideration that not all internet traffic have the same needs.
- anamax 16y ago> I still thing net neutrality must take into consideration that not all internet traffic have the same needs. How do you know the needs of different internet traffic? For example, how do you know that a given video stream "needs" higher priority than a given of e-mail? Yes, I'm aware that video is disrupted by jitter and e-mail isn't, but that doesn't tell you anything about the "needs" of specific content. For example, do you really think that chatroulette "needs" priority over e-mail telling someone how to defuse a bomb?
- mishmash 16y agoExactly, my cable ISP is Cox and they have been traffic shaping for years. That means my neighbor's PornTube traffic already has priority over my FTP session to a clients server. Its underlying traffic shaping method: at times of congestion, all “time-sensitive” traffic – which it defines to include Web pages, voice calls, streaming video, VPN tunneling and games – would not be delayed. However, less time-sensitive traffic, including FTP transfers, network storage, P2P, software updates and Usenet groups, could be. http://connectedplanetonline.com/residential_services/news/cox-traffic-shaping-method-0128/ http://connectedplanetonline.com/residential_services/news/c...
- Unseelie 16y agoIn that very framed particular, no. But when its the aggregate of a great many videos, (some of which might be talking about bombs) and the aggregate of emails, emails with lagtimes do not involve the frustration and loss of value that video with lagtime does, and that has to do with the nature of the mediums. Mail is not a call, it is not a direct contact with a person, mail is leaving a message, which the recipient reads when they are available, unlike a call, where the users have made themselves available.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- roc 16y agoThe linked article lays out precisely what "the fuss" is about. And it uses Google's own prior statements about Net Neutrality as a concise critique of the most objectionable parts of the Verizon agreement.
- spot 16y agoThe linked article does not distinguish between what Google wants and what Google was able to get Verizon to commit to.
- ybot 16y agoThe issue people are upset about isn't what Verizon was willing to commit to -- obviously any concessions from them that move toward an open and neutral internet are a positive step. The problem lies in the commitments Google appears to be willing to make. The compromises that Google have laid out are clearly not a worst case scenario, but I personally hope for a better policy than "it could be worse" to emerge from this discussion.
- roc 16y agoIf we're at all optimistic that Google cares for more Neutrality than they "achieved" here, why would we think those goals are different from what they were arguing in favor of for three years? The entire article is nothing but distinguishing what Google wants from what it settled for.
- shadowfox 16y agoWell. The results are all that we have to go by. Also Google is promoting this as the legislative arrangement that should be pushed without any mention about what they hoped to achieve and couldn't.
- barrkel 16y ago
- spot 16y agoisn't verizon's LTE network bound by Google's neutrality conditions from the auction?
- lordmatty 16y agoI keep coming back to this from Wired - "Openness in the mobile market is no longer in Google’s best interest"
- pilif 16y agoOne thing that came to my mind (and bear in mind that I don't live in the US, so I might not know all the facts): IMHO wired network neutrality is in fact more important than wireless because, I have a feeling that while you are free to chose a wireless carrier that doesn't do the kind of filtering you don't want, that's plain impossible in many wired cases. One thing is sure: If your wireless provider begins to, say, block YouTube because they want to push their own video service, then there will for sure be another wireless provider that lists not blocking youtube as a distinct feature, trying to get all these youtube users as customers. In the majority of areas, there's more than one provider that provides wireless connectivity. But the landline is different. Sure you have analog phone everywhere, but that's not really "internet". Is it? If you want broadband, you have one or at most two carriers to chose from, both usually with a very hight business interest to cripple various services on the internet (Youtube for example) and knowing full well that they would get away with that because there are no options (and building them is prohibitively expensive or even impossible depending on the country - if you wanted to lay yet another cable through rural areas here in Switzerland, you'd be blocked for ages by various legal issues). From this perspective I can understand Google's motivation there: Promise neutrality where there is no competition and allow the wireless carriers to provide the quality of service they need and even allow them to do selective blocking of services because in the wireless space there at least is some competition.
- loup-vaillant 16y agoThe facts contradict you, at least here in France. Here, we have 3 major carriers. None gives you a public IP, and each block most ports (except http, pop3 and such —smtp is blocked, of course). They may have Web neutrality, but Net neutrality is a distant dream. On the land line, however, you have your public IP, and some providers don't even block smtp. The situation there is much better. Even if you take the low bandwidth into account. I can't how this will evolve, but for now, the emergency seems to be the wireless.
- pilif 16y agothe wireless carriers here in switzerland also don't provide you with a public IP - at least depending on your location. I think this has more technical reasons than anything else. The three carriers we can chose from are strangely (and probably illegally - the state is looking into this) similar to each other, but all of them don't make any effort in traffic shaping or controlling. OTOH, they are pretty expensive for what they provide. When AT&T in the US added that 2 GB cap, I was sighing and looking at my 250MB cap. Sure, other carriers have better deals (better as in "cheaper bandwidth" but worse coverage), but you basically can't get more then 1GB for a reasonable price. Aside of that though, they don't care how you use the service they provide. Not having a public IP I can live with. Paying so much for data is annoying, but if that's the way for them to provide me with unfiltered and unconstrained net access, then I'm fine with that. Hell, the word "tethering" wasn't even a word here before the iPhone came around - hooking up your notebook to your phone has always been possible (and encouraged - see prices and caps).