5 ms·

Google responds: Facts about our network neutrality policy proposal

108 points by woodrow 16y ago

prat 16y ago
"So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability – so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet." Can somebody explain? Does this mean verizon would be able to sell special secure service to say, bank of america for its public site? What is the meaning of "separate from public internet"? doesn't this eventually mean that by paying verizon, BOA would be able to offer secure service than a bank who did not buy the "special service" from verizon? Am I missing something here? If this is the case, what is to stop verizon from going a step ahead from offering "secure" to "faster" service to those who care to pay. then where goes net-neutrality.?
- pilif 16y ago
  here in switzerland some of the DSL providers also provide their own set-top box that provides access to TV channels. Which is funny because at first the Cable TV companies brought internet to the households and now the phone companies are bringing TV. Anyways: While the bandwidth for internet is available at bandwidth from 300/100 kbit/s up to 20/1.2 Mbit/s, the TV functionality uses bandwidth independent from those plans allowing even the 300Kbit/s customers to watch TV in acceptable quality. If what this Google proposal means is something like that, we really shouldn't care. This is not about building a private internet, this is about adding additional (and voluntary) services to the existing internet connection.
  - mdwrigh2 16y ago
    This is what its supposed to be about, but the worry is that the television companies that are also providing internet, will just create new 'services', that are effectively a non-net-neutral internet.
    - msg 16y ago
      They're called walled gardens. The real internet considers them damage and routes around them. Don't be concerned.
- sp332 16y ago
  If the special treatment that BoA pays for does not degrade my (or anyone else's) internet performance, and does not degrade the speed or accessibility of other bank websites, I don't mind. I think the "separate and apart" means this goes further - I can't just type https://www.bankofamerica.com/ https://www.bankofamerica.com/ and get the special service.
  - prat 16y ago
    I understand.. so yes - we as users won't mind. but what if I were another bank? The security upgrades that I would normally pay Infosys to do for me now no longer give me a competitive advantage over BoA. I'd have to pay verizon in addition to get the same "special service" to offer the same security (replace with speed/features etc.) right?
    - sp332 16y ago
      Your Infosys stuff will still work - but BoA may be able to add additional end-to-end or last-mile advantages above that. I think (though I'm not sure) that part of this deal precludes exclusivity - BoA cannot prevent another bank from getting the same service for the same money.
      - prat 16y ago
        That makes sense.. so it boils down to the ban on "exclusivity" - if it wasn't for that, then for sure there is no net neutrality.But even with that in there, I am sure it won't be difficult to find a conflict of interest given enough time and freedom for verizon to strategize. For a hypothetical example, what if verizon itself spawns a paypal like website using its own secure service for free for which others have to pay?
    - nanairo 16y ago
      Yep, that's pretty much what it is. The words "upgrade" or "in addition" are purely PR: what is the difference between slowing down website A but not B, or increasing the bandwidth for website B but not A? I'd imagine that in the USA you'll get faster broadband in the future: either the "normal" usage gets redefined each time, or you could be stuck with "normal" being the situation in 2010 for the next decade or more.
cal5k 16y ago
I've found that a pretty good rule of thumb for recognizing corporate BS is any time a campaign is called "Get The Facts" or something similar. For example, look on the side of many boxes of junk cereal and you'll find a "Get The Facts" box touting the benefits of some miniscule quantity of vitamin contained in the cereal. Or when Microsoft launched a "Get The Facts" campaign in 2004 to try to steer users away from Linux. I also find the phrase to be highly condescending.
- jemfinch 16y ago
  > I've found that a pretty good rule of thumb for recognizing corporate BS is any time a campaign is called "Get The Facts" or something similar. Good thing that phrase doesn't occur anywhere in the linked post. Or is your aversion to any use by a corporation of the word "facts"?
  - cal5k 16y ago
    Hence "or something similar"... I'm attempting to draw a parallel to a common PR tactic that has a rather remarkable track record of being disingenuous.
    - prat 16y ago
      I think this PR tactic became common because this is probably the most obvious way of responding to something that one (Google in this case) thinks is a rumor or inaccuracy. even though the parallels are disingenuous, I would refrain from citing this as a reason for feeling suspicious.
      - cal5k 16y ago
        Fair enough. However, my objection is that it paints an overly simplistic picture of the "myth" by reducing it to a one-line straw man which can then easily be dismantled in the "fact" section. So while it's true that it is important to evaluate the content presented, it is also critical to consider the content not included either by commission or omission.
joelhaus 16y ago
"MYTH: This proposal represents a step backwards for the open Internet. FACT: If adopted, this proposal would for the first time give the FCC the ability to preserve the open Internet through enforceable rules on broadband providers. At the same time, the FCC would be prohibited from imposing regulations on the Internet itself." The last sentence seems to be exactly what net neutrality advocates have been endorsing; a regulated internet that prevents ISP's from favoring certain content providers. Why would Google tout this as a benefit? Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but this sounds like a reversal. Please clarify what they mean if I'm wrong.
- jemfinch 16y ago
  What even net neutrality advocates want to avoid is the FCC becoming the "objectionable content police." The FCC should be able to enforce net neutrality, but not create new regulations regarding content. The EFF discussed this in their recent post on the matter.
  - joelhaus 16y ago
    Thanks, hadn't read the EFF discussion, but I was not aware that content censorship was even at issue in the net neutrality debate. Given that this is an official statement from a major stakeholder and given the technical/legal/societal implications, I would have hoped for more precise language. I can still see this sentence being used to justify tying the hands of the FCC when new issues arise due to technological advancements; the whole Comcast judgment brought into question the scope of their regulatory authority & this proposal seems to significantly restrict what could potentially be required to ensure NN. IMO the issue is too important for this type of ambiguity and proposed restrictions on the FCC should be fully aired & vetted.
icarus_drowning 16y ago
The most important point here is their defense of the wireless exemption. Agree with it or not (I'm on the fence, and most people seem to disagree with it), it is deliberately temporary, and most importantly, subject to annual review and debate. So if you don't like it, please disagree, but do note that this is not meant to be a permanent provision.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  But one could still argue that a deliberate, temporary solution still does no good. Why not just take care of everything right now, while we've already got legislators talking about it? If we have to bring up this whole discussion again a second time to get wireless done, I fear it will never be so.
  - chc 16y ago
    Why not just take care of everything right now? For the same reason you don't get married on the first date. Wireless Internet is a very young and largely unknown market, we don't know what form it will eventually settle into and any laws we draft now are likely to be hopelessly naive in the much same way that software design patents are.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      We don't know how it will settle, but we (and by we I mean NN advocates) do know that we want it to respect Net Neutrality as well.
      - icarus_drowning 16y ago
        I (and many others who weren't angered by the Google proposal) agree. But laws are often very specific things. A net neutrality law for wireless networks could very well impose significant, specific restrictions that address our current wireless networks while harming those in the future. And there may be no way of knowing what those "bad" restrictions might be.
inodeman 16y ago
I don't buy it.
- akeefer 16y ago
  Which part don't you buy? Do you think they're lying about their motivations, or do you not agree with their justifications?
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
mikeryan 16y ago
Is it me or does every "MYTH" seem to be proven true in the debunking?
da5e 16y ago
On a quick read this sounds more like they're throwing the word "facts" around pretty loosely. More like re-mything. "in the spirit of compromise" is the key phrase. The thing about de-regulation is that companies don't get stricter with themselves. The initial proposal is as tight as it usually gets.
- moultano 16y ago
  This isn't de-regulation. There is no regulation right now.
  - gamble 16y ago
    There was also a strong political movement to create fair regulation, until Google threw it under the bus.
    - moultano 16y ago
      On the contrary, it seems that the movement is alive and well, and currently throwing Google under the bus.
wooster 16y ago
The Myth/Fact format was probably the wrong choice when many of the "Fact" sections contain information supportive of the "Myth", along with a few weasel words like "But given political realities", "However, in the spirit of compromise", etc.
- mbreese 16y ago
  If you think political realities don't have an effect on what can be accomplished with net neutrality, you're just being naive. I think this marks the point in time where (publicly at least) Google has moved on from the unfettered idealist stage to the more pragmatic realist stage. It might be a sad shift, but it was an inevitable one.
  - dschobel 16y ago
    If being pragmatic entails giving up the fight (as google has done in the wireless world), count me out.
    - spot 16y ago
      who said they gave up?
    - nooneelse 16y ago
      Allowing a stall as part of a compromise is not the same as giving up.
      - dschobel 16y ago
        They ceded the wireless world to the control of the carriers so it wouldn't be a stall so much as playing dead. And a full reversal is certainly possible, it would imply a short-sightedness which is hard to reconcile with Google's policy history which tells us that it would take some major event (think the Chinese hacking incident) for them to reverse themselves entirely. There is simply no way this agreement was undertaken lightly or without extensive analysis. Doubly so because it pisses off the technical elite (and they surely knew it would) both inside and outside Google.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
DanielRibeiro 16y ago
Reminds of what pg said on Be good (http://paulgraham.com/good.html http://paulgraham.com/good.html): Anyone can adopt "Don't be evil." The catch is that people will hold you to it.
joshfraser 16y ago
It's the "in the spirit of compromise" line that I don't get. I'm pretty sure Google would prefer net neutrality to apply to wireless too, but they threw users under the bus to buddy up with Verizon. But no one asked Google to put this proposal together. No one said they had to work together with Verizon on it. Why didn't they just both submit their own proposals and let the FCC make up their own mind on the various issues? It's not like this proposal is going to get passed directly into law anyway. Compromise? That doesn't sound like the Google I know and love. Google has always been known for their lofty ideals and their principled founders. They are the company you can trust to walk away from billions of dollars before compromising what they believe. We saw that in their interactions with China. We saw that when they owned up to the data they accidentally collected driving down the street. We saw that when they changed their rules to make it harder for spammers to put adsense on temporary landing pages. I've been a Google fan boy for a long time but this week they lost my respect.
- wmf 16y ago
  Why didn't they just both submit their own proposals and let the FCC make up their own mind on the various issues? I suspect that the FCC would see no common ground between the proposals and do nothing. In fact, that was pretty much the state of play until last week.
  - joshfraser 16y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised if the FCC ends up ignoring most of this anyway just so they don't end up looking like Google's butt boy.
    - wmf 16y ago
      This proposal has been endorsed by Google, Verizon, and AT&T.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
  - nostromo 16y ago
dschobel 16y ago
Principles which succumb to "political realities" or the "spirit of compromise" are no principles at all. I'm still hugely disappointed but maybe it was naive to think a corporate entity could ever have true principles.
- sprout 16y ago
  The "spirit of compromise" is the core principle of democracy. If you're against compromise, you're against democracy.
  - Jach 16y ago
    Then color me against democracy, but I don't care if the democratic majority wants slavery: it's bad and should not be compromised on, the majority will just have to suck up.
  - dschobel 16y ago
    That is frightening logic and factually incorrect. History is full of examples of minority abuse at the hands of the majority. Here is a good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_democracy#Oppression_by_the_majority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_democracy#Oppressi...
    - sprout 16y ago
      I think most would agree that those are failed democracies. Just because democracy does certain things in practice does not mean that those things are in line with the core principles of democracy, of which compromise is one.
      - gloob 16y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
  - neilk 16y ago
    This has nothing to do with democracy. It's about business interests colluding against the public interest.
gamble 16y ago
MYTH: Google has “sold out” on network neutrality. FACT: Sure, we were all ready to pay $4.6 billion to keep the 700MHz band open a couple years ago. Hey, had you seen that iPhone thing? It was killing us. But that was yesterday. Just the other day, our BFF Verizon told us that Android was selling 300,000 units a day. 300,000 a day. We were, like, "Net neutrality who?"
- spot 16y ago
  ACTUAL FACT: they got the neutrality concession on that spectrum and it will apply to verizon's 4G network.
  - nanairo 16y ago
    How can you reconcile this view with the new Google where "wireless is already very competitive so no need for regulations"? How is that not giving in?
    - spot 16y ago
      that's not a view, it's a simple matter of history. as for the future they say: "for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye."
    - gbhn 16y ago
      Are these rules on the 700MHz spectrum not going to take effect? I've seen nothing that suggests that's the case. Certainly a policy proposal doesn't have the force necessary to change these rules. If anything, those rules are evidence that wireless will become more open over time.
    - yoden 16y ago
      As they clearly state, they can't see enough reason to force regulation yet. And with at least double the number of providers (far more if you count resellers) compared to landlines (USA-centric view), they're right. Now, you can still argue that despite competition mobile internet needs regulation. But that's a much tougher argument to make.
tmsh 16y ago
Personally, I am for total net neutrality (wireless, etc.). But speaking pure strategy, you'd think after Microsoft antitrust, USL/BSDi, etc., that large tech companies would learn to avoid going anywhere near debates about the law. Legal debates are really important. In fact they are so important that they have a habit of leaving some of the largest centers of innovation in their wake. And each legal fight is different, for sure. But I don't think people exactly appreciate the opportunity cost associated with anything but the most clear positions on social/legal issues. Don't get me wrong: debate is important. Critical to our society and all that. But as a company, you can't ever afford to be kinda in a stance about something. Facebook, to their credit, come off as usually very decisive about their policy decision making (maybe it's that hacker, trial and error culture?), if wrong at first. I think Google's approach in China was pretty good. They were almost decisive for about five minutes. But then it got mired in this or that proxy -- and meanwhile you create this doubt in people's minds. The doubters gain traction -- and it even infects your own focus, etc. -- all the way down the org chart. And I don't know that I'm advocating disruptive, brash decision making. But you have to think of this whole technology and world environment as in a very fast-moving frame of reference. In which, anything that positions you in doubt and uncertainty grows with time until you clarify things. It's a fast moving set of integrals, running up area underneath at any given moment. Honesty is probably always the most important. But messed up frames of reference that seem like the right thing but actually tie up entire reserves of focus, etc., will quickly waylay even the best by the side of the road.
chintan 16y ago
Dear Google, I'm new to this. Care to explain what is this "public Internet" you talk about? I always thought there was only the Internet. Thank You
- moultano 16y ago
  Your cable comes in over the same lines that your internet does.
  - alecco 16y ago
    And that's Internet how?
- sorbus 16y ago
  Sites only accessible to people on a network which is linked to the internet are not part of the public internet (for instance, my router's configuration page is most definitely not part of the public internet). A proprietary browser-based application running inside of a corporate network would not be part of the public internet, unless it is specifically designed to be accessible to anyone with a browser. The basic rule of thumb I would use is that something is on the public internet if anyone with a browser in a country with no filtering of the internet can reach it, given the proper passwords and so forth (and without using a VPN or similar tunneling to make it appear that they're elsewhere).
  - chintan 16y ago
    You are confusing between internet and the Internet. Google said public Internet.
    - sorbus 16y ago
      Would you mind explaining the difference between them, other than that one is capitalized while the other is not, then? Focus on how I would be inaccurate if I replaced every instance of "internet" with "Internet" in my previous post.
- 16y ago
47 16y ago
Google response: It is kinda Neutral
orblivion 16y ago
As soon as you start using "MYTH" in regards to opinions or analysis, you've lost me.
malabar 16y ago
Google and other folks mention "political reality" as the reason for compromise. Folks, that just means we dont want to work hard at it, or make waves. If this country is truly democratic, then we, the people, have the power. We have the power to make not only Verizon and Google kneel to uus, but the FCC and the knuckleheads in DC.
navyrain 16y ago
Transparency in how providers muck about with wireless connections is nice and all, but honestly, what real use is transparency unless you can act on it. Between the wireless industry's pervasive contracts, and the low number of provider options, the average user has little recourse when they get poor treatment. Google is pretty much telling us that it is too much to ask that we have choice, transparency and neutrality on our public airwaves, a common good. I do not agree.
alecco 16y ago
For context: > Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090129_interview_richard_whitt_google_telecom_media_counsel/ http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090129_interview_richard_whi... From Linked-in profile: President at NetsEdge Consulting, LLC (Sole Proprietorship) VP of Federal Law and Policy at MCI Senior Director for Global Public Policy at MCI Director of Federal Law and Policy at MCI Regulatory Counsel at IDB WorldCom Associate Attorney at Sutherland, Asbill, and Brennan Associate Attorney at Bishop, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCI > MCI, Inc. is an American telecommunications subsidiary of Verizon Communications.
mkramlich 16y ago
Read the article and when at the very beginning I saw it was written by a lawyer I had a bad feeling about what the rest of it would be like. And I was right.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
showngo 16y ago
This is such bull shit.
whyme 16y ago
What I got from the post was how arrogant Google has become. Anyone notice that they dress up their opinions with wasted "MYTHS" & "FACTS"? And while the myth statements & facts maybe be true, they don't actually dis-prove the point of many originating myths, which Is why they follow each Myth/Fact with an opinion. I don't mind Google having an opinion worth fighting for, but Google is a private company trying to push their private deals on government acting like they are doing everyone a favor. I personally don't appreciate what they're doing and I'm noticing a trend where I'm beginning to like Google as much as I like Microsoft, and I hate Microsoft.
extension 16y ago
I'm having trouble blaming them for the out-of-band services exemption. That seems unavoidable to me as the alternative leads to absurdities. How would you technically define "neutrality" between a digital TV service and its piggybacked internet connection? If the provider wants to allocate enough bandwidth for a specific quality video signal and use the rest for IP, is something wrong with that? Are they supposed to throttle the video signal to match the quality of Youtube? Even if they use IP for the TV service, it's still going to blow away any competing service that has to traverse the public internet and I don't see any sensible way the ISP could avoid that. And it gets really weird when you look at internet over analog services, like DSL and cable modems. The best you can do is force them to treat all IP traffic equally. Then they can't cripple Youtube or Skype without crippling the entire internet. The next least heavy-handed thing I can think of doing is simply forcing all digital services onto the public internet, which would be neat but a bit too ambitious.
thebigshane 16y ago
I know regular HNers are always saying how the community is becoming more like reddit and digg, and I knew there was an inevitable gradual change... but, threads like these really start to scare me. There is very little factual, rational discourse in this 100+ point and 100+ comment thread. There are lots of passionate opinions and that's great but the naivety, over-confidence, strict idealism is, I think, really counter to the hacker culture/philosophy that makes this community appeal to me. I'm not here crying the sky is falling; I just want those passionate arm-chair politicians to take a step back and reconsider the virtue of practicality and getting the best out of a bad/difficult situation.

108 points by woodrow 16y ago

prat 16y ago

"So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability – so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet." Can somebody explain? Does this mean verizon would be able to sell special secure service to say, bank of america for its public site? What is the meaning of "separate from public internet"? doesn't this eventually mean that by paying verizon, BOA would be able to offer secure service than a bank who did not buy the "special service" from verizon? Am I missing something here? If this is the case, what is to stop verizon from going a step ahead from offering "secure" to "faster" service to those who care to pay. then where goes net-neutrality.?

pilif 16y ago
here in switzerland some of the DSL providers also provide their own set-top box that provides access to TV channels. Which is funny because at first the Cable TV companies brought internet to the households and now the phone companies are bringing TV. Anyways: While the bandwidth for internet is available at bandwidth from 300/100 kbit/s up to 20/1.2 Mbit/s, the TV functionality uses bandwidth independent from those plans allowing even the 300Kbit/s customers to watch TV in acceptable quality. If what this Google proposal means is something like that, we really shouldn't care. This is not about building a private internet, this is about adding additional (and voluntary) services to the existing internet connection.
- mdwrigh2 16y ago
  This is what its supposed to be about, but the worry is that the television companies that are also providing internet, will just create new 'services', that are effectively a non-net-neutral internet.
  - msg 16y ago
    They're called walled gardens. The real internet considers them damage and routes around them. Don't be concerned.
sp332 16y ago
If the special treatment that BoA pays for does not degrade my (or anyone else's) internet performance, and does not degrade the speed or accessibility of other bank websites, I don't mind. I think the "separate and apart" means this goes further - I can't just type https://www.bankofamerica.com/ https://www.bankofamerica.com/ and get the special service.
- prat 16y ago
  I understand.. so yes - we as users won't mind. but what if I were another bank? The security upgrades that I would normally pay Infosys to do for me now no longer give me a competitive advantage over BoA. I'd have to pay verizon in addition to get the same "special service" to offer the same security (replace with speed/features etc.) right?
  - sp332 16y ago
    Your Infosys stuff will still work - but BoA may be able to add additional end-to-end or last-mile advantages above that. I think (though I'm not sure) that part of this deal precludes exclusivity - BoA cannot prevent another bank from getting the same service for the same money.
    - prat 16y ago
      That makes sense.. so it boils down to the ban on "exclusivity" - if it wasn't for that, then for sure there is no net neutrality.But even with that in there, I am sure it won't be difficult to find a conflict of interest given enough time and freedom for verizon to strategize. For a hypothetical example, what if verizon itself spawns a paypal like website using its own secure service for free for which others have to pay?
  - nanairo 16y ago
    Yep, that's pretty much what it is. The words "upgrade" or "in addition" are purely PR: what is the difference between slowing down website A but not B, or increasing the bandwidth for website B but not A? I'd imagine that in the USA you'll get faster broadband in the future: either the "normal" usage gets redefined each time, or you could be stuck with "normal" being the situation in 2010 for the next decade or more.

cal5k 16y ago

I've found that a pretty good rule of thumb for recognizing corporate BS is any time a campaign is called "Get The Facts" or something similar. For example, look on the side of many boxes of junk cereal and you'll find a "Get The Facts" box touting the benefits of some miniscule quantity of vitamin contained in the cereal. Or when Microsoft launched a "Get The Facts" campaign in 2004 to try to steer users away from Linux. I also find the phrase to be highly condescending.

jemfinch 16y ago
> I've found that a pretty good rule of thumb for recognizing corporate BS is any time a campaign is called "Get The Facts" or something similar. Good thing that phrase doesn't occur anywhere in the linked post. Or is your aversion to any use by a corporation of the word "facts"?
- cal5k 16y ago
  Hence "or something similar"... I'm attempting to draw a parallel to a common PR tactic that has a rather remarkable track record of being disingenuous.
  - prat 16y ago
    I think this PR tactic became common because this is probably the most obvious way of responding to something that one (Google in this case) thinks is a rumor or inaccuracy. even though the parallels are disingenuous, I would refrain from citing this as a reason for feeling suspicious.
    - cal5k 16y ago
      Fair enough. However, my objection is that it paints an overly simplistic picture of the "myth" by reducing it to a one-line straw man which can then easily be dismantled in the "fact" section. So while it's true that it is important to evaluate the content presented, it is also critical to consider the content not included either by commission or omission.

joelhaus 16y ago

"MYTH: This proposal represents a step backwards for the open Internet. FACT: If adopted, this proposal would for the first time give the FCC the ability to preserve the open Internet through enforceable rules on broadband providers. At the same time, the FCC would be prohibited from imposing regulations on the Internet itself." The last sentence seems to be exactly what net neutrality advocates have been endorsing; a regulated internet that prevents ISP's from favoring certain content providers. Why would Google tout this as a benefit? Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but this sounds like a reversal. Please clarify what they mean if I'm wrong.

jemfinch 16y ago
What even net neutrality advocates want to avoid is the FCC becoming the "objectionable content police." The FCC should be able to enforce net neutrality, but not create new regulations regarding content. The EFF discussed this in their recent post on the matter.
- joelhaus 16y ago
  Thanks, hadn't read the EFF discussion, but I was not aware that content censorship was even at issue in the net neutrality debate. Given that this is an official statement from a major stakeholder and given the technical/legal/societal implications, I would have hoped for more precise language. I can still see this sentence being used to justify tying the hands of the FCC when new issues arise due to technological advancements; the whole Comcast judgment brought into question the scope of their regulatory authority & this proposal seems to significantly restrict what could potentially be required to ensure NN. IMO the issue is too important for this type of ambiguity and proposed restrictions on the FCC should be fully aired & vetted.

icarus_drowning 16y ago

The most important point here is their defense of the wireless exemption. Agree with it or not (I'm on the fence, and most people seem to disagree with it), it is deliberately temporary, and most importantly, subject to annual review and debate. So if you don't like it, please disagree, but do note that this is not meant to be a permanent provision.

steveklabnik 16y ago
But one could still argue that a deliberate, temporary solution still does no good. Why not just take care of everything right now, while we've already got legislators talking about it? If we have to bring up this whole discussion again a second time to get wireless done, I fear it will never be so.
- chc 16y ago
  Why not just take care of everything right now? For the same reason you don't get married on the first date. Wireless Internet is a very young and largely unknown market, we don't know what form it will eventually settle into and any laws we draft now are likely to be hopelessly naive in the much same way that software design patents are.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    We don't know how it will settle, but we (and by we I mean NN advocates) do know that we want it to respect Net Neutrality as well.
    - icarus_drowning 16y ago
      I (and many others who weren't angered by the Google proposal) agree. But laws are often very specific things. A net neutrality law for wireless networks could very well impose significant, specific restrictions that address our current wireless networks while harming those in the future. And there may be no way of knowing what those "bad" restrictions might be.

inodeman 16y ago

I don't buy it.

akeefer 16y ago
Which part don't you buy? Do you think they're lying about their motivations, or do you not agree with their justifications?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

mikeryan 16y ago

Is it me or does every "MYTH" seem to be proven true in the debunking?

da5e 16y ago

On a quick read this sounds more like they're throwing the word "facts" around pretty loosely. More like re-mything. "in the spirit of compromise" is the key phrase. The thing about de-regulation is that companies don't get stricter with themselves. The initial proposal is as tight as it usually gets.

moultano 16y ago
This isn't de-regulation. There is no regulation right now.
- gamble 16y ago
  There was also a strong political movement to create fair regulation, until Google threw it under the bus.
  - moultano 16y ago
    On the contrary, it seems that the movement is alive and well, and currently throwing Google under the bus.

wooster 16y ago

The Myth/Fact format was probably the wrong choice when many of the "Fact" sections contain information supportive of the "Myth", along with a few weasel words like "But given political realities", "However, in the spirit of compromise", etc.

mbreese 16y ago
If you think political realities don't have an effect on what can be accomplished with net neutrality, you're just being naive. I think this marks the point in time where (publicly at least) Google has moved on from the unfettered idealist stage to the more pragmatic realist stage. It might be a sad shift, but it was an inevitable one.
- dschobel 16y ago
  If being pragmatic entails giving up the fight (as google has done in the wireless world), count me out.
  - spot 16y ago
    who said they gave up?
  - nooneelse 16y ago
    Allowing a stall as part of a compromise is not the same as giving up.
    - dschobel 16y ago
      They ceded the wireless world to the control of the carriers so it wouldn't be a stall so much as playing dead. And a full reversal is certainly possible, it would imply a short-sightedness which is hard to reconcile with Google's policy history which tells us that it would take some major event (think the Chinese hacking incident) for them to reverse themselves entirely. There is simply no way this agreement was undertaken lightly or without extensive analysis. Doubly so because it pisses off the technical elite (and they surely knew it would) both inside and outside Google.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

DanielRibeiro 16y ago

Reminds of what pg said on Be good (http://paulgraham.com/good.html http://paulgraham.com/good.html): Anyone can adopt "Don't be evil." The catch is that people will hold you to it.

joshfraser 16y ago

It's the "in the spirit of compromise" line that I don't get. I'm pretty sure Google would prefer net neutrality to apply to wireless too, but they threw users under the bus to buddy up with Verizon. But no one asked Google to put this proposal together. No one said they had to work together with Verizon on it. Why didn't they just both submit their own proposals and let the FCC make up their own mind on the various issues? It's not like this proposal is going to get passed directly into law anyway. Compromise? That doesn't sound like the Google I know and love. Google has always been known for their lofty ideals and their principled founders. They are the company you can trust to walk away from billions of dollars before compromising what they believe. We saw that in their interactions with China. We saw that when they owned up to the data they accidentally collected driving down the street. We saw that when they changed their rules to make it harder for spammers to put adsense on temporary landing pages. I've been a Google fan boy for a long time but this week they lost my respect.

wmf 16y ago
Why didn't they just both submit their own proposals and let the FCC make up their own mind on the various issues? I suspect that the FCC would see no common ground between the proposals and do nothing. In fact, that was pretty much the state of play until last week.
- joshfraser 16y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if the FCC ends up ignoring most of this anyway just so they don't end up looking like Google's butt boy.
  - wmf 16y ago
    This proposal has been endorsed by Google, Verizon, and AT&T.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- nostromo 16y ago

dschobel 16y ago

Principles which succumb to "political realities" or the "spirit of compromise" are no principles at all. I'm still hugely disappointed but maybe it was naive to think a corporate entity could ever have true principles.

sprout 16y ago
The "spirit of compromise" is the core principle of democracy. If you're against compromise, you're against democracy.
- Jach 16y ago
  Then color me against democracy, but I don't care if the democratic majority wants slavery: it's bad and should not be compromised on, the majority will just have to suck up.
- dschobel 16y ago
  That is frightening logic and factually incorrect. History is full of examples of minority abuse at the hands of the majority. Here is a good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_democracy#Oppression_by_the_majority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_democracy#Oppressi...
  - sprout 16y ago
    I think most would agree that those are failed democracies. Just because democracy does certain things in practice does not mean that those things are in line with the core principles of democracy, of which compromise is one.
    - gloob 16y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
- neilk 16y ago
  This has nothing to do with democracy. It's about business interests colluding against the public interest.

gamble 16y ago

MYTH: Google has “sold out” on network neutrality. FACT: Sure, we were all ready to pay $4.6 billion to keep the 700MHz band open a couple years ago. Hey, had you seen that iPhone thing? It was killing us. But that was yesterday. Just the other day, our BFF Verizon told us that Android was selling 300,000 units a day. 300,000 a day. We were, like, "Net neutrality who?"

spot 16y ago
ACTUAL FACT: they got the neutrality concession on that spectrum and it will apply to verizon's 4G network.
- nanairo 16y ago
  How can you reconcile this view with the new Google where "wireless is already very competitive so no need for regulations"? How is that not giving in?
  - spot 16y ago
    that's not a view, it's a simple matter of history. as for the future they say: "for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye."
  - gbhn 16y ago
    Are these rules on the 700MHz spectrum not going to take effect? I've seen nothing that suggests that's the case. Certainly a policy proposal doesn't have the force necessary to change these rules. If anything, those rules are evidence that wireless will become more open over time.
  - yoden 16y ago
    As they clearly state, they can't see enough reason to force regulation yet. And with at least double the number of providers (far more if you count resellers) compared to landlines (USA-centric view), they're right. Now, you can still argue that despite competition mobile internet needs regulation. But that's a much tougher argument to make.

tmsh 16y ago

Personally, I am for total net neutrality (wireless, etc.). But speaking pure strategy, you'd think after Microsoft antitrust, USL/BSDi, etc., that large tech companies would learn to avoid going anywhere near debates about the law. Legal debates are really important. In fact they are so important that they have a habit of leaving some of the largest centers of innovation in their wake. And each legal fight is different, for sure. But I don't think people exactly appreciate the opportunity cost associated with anything but the most clear positions on social/legal issues. Don't get me wrong: debate is important. Critical to our society and all that. But as a company, you can't ever afford to be kinda in a stance about something. Facebook, to their credit, come off as usually very decisive about their policy decision making (maybe it's that hacker, trial and error culture?), if wrong at first. I think Google's approach in China was pretty good. They were almost decisive for about five minutes. But then it got mired in this or that proxy -- and meanwhile you create this doubt in people's minds. The doubters gain traction -- and it even infects your own focus, etc. -- all the way down the org chart. And I don't know that I'm advocating disruptive, brash decision making. But you have to think of this whole technology and world environment as in a very fast-moving frame of reference. In which, anything that positions you in doubt and uncertainty grows with time until you clarify things. It's a fast moving set of integrals, running up area underneath at any given moment. Honesty is probably always the most important. But messed up frames of reference that seem like the right thing but actually tie up entire reserves of focus, etc., will quickly waylay even the best by the side of the road.

chintan 16y ago

Dear Google, I'm new to this. Care to explain what is this "public Internet" you talk about? I always thought there was only the Internet. Thank You

moultano 16y ago
Your cable comes in over the same lines that your internet does.
- alecco 16y ago
  And that's Internet how?
sorbus 16y ago
Sites only accessible to people on a network which is linked to the internet are not part of the public internet (for instance, my router's configuration page is most definitely not part of the public internet). A proprietary browser-based application running inside of a corporate network would not be part of the public internet, unless it is specifically designed to be accessible to anyone with a browser. The basic rule of thumb I would use is that something is on the public internet if anyone with a browser in a country with no filtering of the internet can reach it, given the proper passwords and so forth (and without using a VPN or similar tunneling to make it appear that they're elsewhere).
- chintan 16y ago
  You are confusing between internet and the Internet. Google said public Internet.
  - sorbus 16y ago
    Would you mind explaining the difference between them, other than that one is capitalized while the other is not, then? Focus on how I would be inaccurate if I replaced every instance of "internet" with "Internet" in my previous post.
16y ago

47 16y ago

Google response: It is kinda Neutral

orblivion 16y ago

As soon as you start using "MYTH" in regards to opinions or analysis, you've lost me.

malabar 16y ago

Google and other folks mention "political reality" as the reason for compromise. Folks, that just means we dont want to work hard at it, or make waves. If this country is truly democratic, then we, the people, have the power. We have the power to make not only Verizon and Google kneel to uus, but the FCC and the knuckleheads in DC.

navyrain 16y ago

Transparency in how providers muck about with wireless connections is nice and all, but honestly, what real use is transparency unless you can act on it. Between the wireless industry's pervasive contracts, and the low number of provider options, the average user has little recourse when they get poor treatment. Google is pretty much telling us that it is too much to ask that we have choice, transparency and neutrality on our public airwaves, a common good. I do not agree.

alecco 16y ago

For context: > Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090129_interview_richard_whitt_google_telecom_media_counsel/ http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090129_interview_richard_whi... From Linked-in profile: President at NetsEdge Consulting, LLC (Sole Proprietorship) VP of Federal Law and Policy at MCI Senior Director for Global Public Policy at MCI Director of Federal Law and Policy at MCI Regulatory Counsel at IDB WorldCom Associate Attorney at Sutherland, Asbill, and Brennan Associate Attorney at Bishop, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCI > MCI, Inc. is an American telecommunications subsidiary of Verizon Communications.

mkramlich 16y ago

Read the article and when at the very beginning I saw it was written by a lawyer I had a bad feeling about what the rest of it would be like. And I was right.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

showngo 16y ago

This is such bull shit.

whyme 16y ago

What I got from the post was how arrogant Google has become. Anyone notice that they dress up their opinions with wasted "MYTHS" & "FACTS"? And while the myth statements & facts maybe be true, they don't actually dis-prove the point of many originating myths, which Is why they follow each Myth/Fact with an opinion. I don't mind Google having an opinion worth fighting for, but Google is a private company trying to push their private deals on government acting like they are doing everyone a favor. I personally don't appreciate what they're doing and I'm noticing a trend where I'm beginning to like Google as much as I like Microsoft, and I hate Microsoft.

extension 16y ago

I'm having trouble blaming them for the out-of-band services exemption. That seems unavoidable to me as the alternative leads to absurdities. How would you technically define "neutrality" between a digital TV service and its piggybacked internet connection? If the provider wants to allocate enough bandwidth for a specific quality video signal and use the rest for IP, is something wrong with that? Are they supposed to throttle the video signal to match the quality of Youtube? Even if they use IP for the TV service, it's still going to blow away any competing service that has to traverse the public internet and I don't see any sensible way the ISP could avoid that. And it gets really weird when you look at internet over analog services, like DSL and cable modems. The best you can do is force them to treat all IP traffic equally. Then they can't cripple Youtube or Skype without crippling the entire internet. The next least heavy-handed thing I can think of doing is simply forcing all digital services onto the public internet, which would be neat but a bit too ambitious.

thebigshane 16y ago

I know regular HNers are always saying how the community is becoming more like reddit and digg, and I knew there was an inevitable gradual change... but, threads like these really start to scare me. There is very little factual, rational discourse in this 100+ point and 100+ comment thread. There are lots of passionate opinions and that's great but the naivety, over-confidence, strict idealism is, I think, really counter to the hacker culture/philosophy that makes this community appeal to me. I'm not here crying the sky is falling; I just want those passionate arm-chair politicians to take a step back and reconsider the virtue of practicality and getting the best out of a bad/difficult situation.