5 ms·

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

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
  I think it would be better for the FCC to keep doing nothing at this point. Right now the ISPs are afraid that if they create a tiered network that there would be outrage and the government would move in and regulate their industry. However, now Google has given them coverage by making it appear to the FCC and congress that there is a compromise that can be made into law. I'd actually prefer that there be only light regulation, but a healthy paranoia from the telcos that they would be strong armed by the government (and corporations like Google) if they start to violate net neutrality. It reminds me of a debate in US history about the Bill of Rights. Some argued that by listing your rights, you are inherently implying that there are no rights other than those listed. The idea is that by not enumerating rights you expand them.
  - wmf 16y ago
    I think the current state of regulatory uncertainty cannot last. Eventually Washington will get bored of the issue and — absent regulation — ISPs will go back to their old tricks.
    - nostromo 16y ago
      Perhaps. But sometimes telling an industry not to fuck consumers or face regulation keeps them better behaved than telling them exactly how they are allowed to fuck consumers.
      - djcapelis 16y ago
        Which seems to exactly match up with the approach google proposed the government take with regard to wireless...
  - napierzaza 16y ago
    What Google did would only be the beginning if there's not action. Telcos won't be worried anymore if Google/Verizon goes through.
  - bad_user 16y ago
    > The idea is that by not enumerating rights you expand them. Bullshit. Only 2 things are giving you freedoms right now ... free markets where competition is real and regulations by an elected government ... the later doing good in some cases, bad in others. If you don't want government regulations (which let's be honest, aren't done for the good of the public most of the times), then you need ways to prevent monopolies. Advancements in technology are one way to do it ... and I clearly see Google's point of view. Wireless Internet is a much more competitive landscape, and IMHO the FCC would do more harm than good in the current market. I live in Europe and I'm paying ~ 20 euros per month for 3G Internet provided by Vodafone (~ 4 GB of traffic included, the bandwidth fluctuating between 2 - 4 Mbps). And it's a pre-pay card, no contract attached, and I'm paying whenever I feel like it. When a competitor approached me with an offer for a 2 year contract I almost told them to go fuck themselves. And now they are also offering a competitive pre-pay option. And 4 GB of traffic may not be enough ... but I remember the days when I was working over a 56 kbps telephone land-line. Things will improve.
- gphil 16y ago
  Is the FCC so hapless that they can't make independent decisions about this? I sincerely hope that their logic isn't just: "Well, since Google and Verizon both agree on this then we better agree with them too!" I actually don't think Google really cares too much about network neutrality one way or the other at this point. What they do care about is gaining clout in the mobile world, as the wired internet becomes increasingly irrelevant.
yanw 16y ago
They fought for net neutrality for the longest time, and I believe they still do it's just that they were doing it alone, the FCC seemed helpless to do anything so they negotiated with Verizon, and in the corporate world compromises and piratical solutions are the reality.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- napierzaza 16y ago
  So they're the victims in this situation? They could have not made a profit from this. But since they decided that they would they made the compromise that would put them in that space.
nicodemus 16y ago
I agree with you for most parts, but the interactions with China should not be mistaken for 'google taking the high ground'. Google was already losing horribly to Baidu to the point where they were giving away free music in order to try and gain users ( http://www.drmwatch.com/ocr/article.php/3726636 http://www.drmwatch.com/ocr/article.php/3726636 ). They made a sensible decision to leave, but framed it as a human rights issue to the media in order to gain sympathy. In no ways am I defending Baidu or China. I am just saying they didn't leave because of their lofty morals.
- moultano 16y ago
  >I am just saying they didn't leave because of their lofty morals. So they risked giving up 40% market share for the hell of it?
  - gamble 16y ago
    Market share != revenue. China only represented 1% of Google's revenue when they pulled out. They saw the writing on the wall - China would not allow foreign Internet companies to be successful in the long term - and decided to pull out before corporate espionage transferred all of their technology to Chinese competitors. It's a bit much to paint that as some bold moral stand. They were fine with censorship for four years - why did it suddenly become so objectionable?
    - juvenn 16y ago
      Since the sensorship is beyond what Google's founders had expected. Even we native Chinese had not expected that then. However, given they have invested so much on the Free Music Plan, and the market was rewarding, why, all of sudden, they pulled their feet? And risking of losing the world's largest and emerging market? Though, I agree there are multiple causes about that. But simply thinking they pulled because they were losing ...
    - ratsbane 16y ago
      YouTube only represents a tiny portion (<1%) of Google's revenue. GMail, Google Docs, Google Earth, etc. only represent a tiny portion of Google's revenue. While your larger point may be correct (though I hope not) they've always shown willingness and ability to invest in market share for the long term - and 40% of China's search market is kind of a big deal.
rdtsc 16y ago
> Google has always been known for their lofty ideals ... Notice you said "they are _known_ for their lofty ideals" it doesn't mean they live by their ideals. > They are the company you can trust to walk away from billions... If they already make hundreds of billions, walking away from 1 billion doesn't seem that bad in exchange for a PR win and more billions comming in the future. > 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. My personal measure for company idealism is this : "the amount of revenue (both long and short term) they are willing to give up in order to abide by their ideals". Was China a major market for them? No. They raised a PR stink only after they realized it was lost cause and they might as well drum up some PR points for it. Then capturing of too much private data -- well, if it was a lawsuit coming because somone could have leaked it, there's not much idealism at work there as damage control. Changing their rules to block spammers -- also just trying to cut out the irrelevant noise, to make their ads more focused. > I've been a Google fan boy for a long time but this week they lost my respect. I have set asside my respect for Google after their IPO. Not because they did anything wrong, but because I knew it would come to this. Don't get me wrong, they are still a good money making machine, but that's all they are -- a big friggin' money making machine. Google doesn't have a soul, it doesn't have a moral sense, it is here to make money. If it stops making money it wil vanish. If telling people you are "good and not evil" makes money, they'll tell people that, if getting in bed with Verizon makes them money -- so be it. I for one, don't blame Google. They are just now performing according to my expectations and behaving like a large, publically owned company should behave. I am still baffled at the large number of intelligent and rational individuals who have been misled by Google's PR over these years.

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
I think it would be better for the FCC to keep doing nothing at this point. Right now the ISPs are afraid that if they create a tiered network that there would be outrage and the government would move in and regulate their industry. However, now Google has given them coverage by making it appear to the FCC and congress that there is a compromise that can be made into law. I'd actually prefer that there be only light regulation, but a healthy paranoia from the telcos that they would be strong armed by the government (and corporations like Google) if they start to violate net neutrality. It reminds me of a debate in US history about the Bill of Rights. Some argued that by listing your rights, you are inherently implying that there are no rights other than those listed. The idea is that by not enumerating rights you expand them.
- wmf 16y ago
  I think the current state of regulatory uncertainty cannot last. Eventually Washington will get bored of the issue and — absent regulation — ISPs will go back to their old tricks.
  - nostromo 16y ago
    Perhaps. But sometimes telling an industry not to fuck consumers or face regulation keeps them better behaved than telling them exactly how they are allowed to fuck consumers.
    - djcapelis 16y ago
      Which seems to exactly match up with the approach google proposed the government take with regard to wireless...
- napierzaza 16y ago
  What Google did would only be the beginning if there's not action. Telcos won't be worried anymore if Google/Verizon goes through.
- bad_user 16y ago
  > The idea is that by not enumerating rights you expand them. Bullshit. Only 2 things are giving you freedoms right now ... free markets where competition is real and regulations by an elected government ... the later doing good in some cases, bad in others. If you don't want government regulations (which let's be honest, aren't done for the good of the public most of the times), then you need ways to prevent monopolies. Advancements in technology are one way to do it ... and I clearly see Google's point of view. Wireless Internet is a much more competitive landscape, and IMHO the FCC would do more harm than good in the current market. I live in Europe and I'm paying ~ 20 euros per month for 3G Internet provided by Vodafone (~ 4 GB of traffic included, the bandwidth fluctuating between 2 - 4 Mbps). And it's a pre-pay card, no contract attached, and I'm paying whenever I feel like it. When a competitor approached me with an offer for a 2 year contract I almost told them to go fuck themselves. And now they are also offering a competitive pre-pay option. And 4 GB of traffic may not be enough ... but I remember the days when I was working over a 56 kbps telephone land-line. Things will improve.
gphil 16y ago
Is the FCC so hapless that they can't make independent decisions about this? I sincerely hope that their logic isn't just: "Well, since Google and Verizon both agree on this then we better agree with them too!" I actually don't think Google really cares too much about network neutrality one way or the other at this point. What they do care about is gaining clout in the mobile world, as the wired internet becomes increasingly irrelevant.

yanw 16y ago

They fought for net neutrality for the longest time, and I believe they still do it's just that they were doing it alone, the FCC seemed helpless to do anything so they negotiated with Verizon, and in the corporate world compromises and piratical solutions are the reality.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
napierzaza 16y ago
So they're the victims in this situation? They could have not made a profit from this. But since they decided that they would they made the compromise that would put them in that space.

nicodemus 16y ago

I agree with you for most parts, but the interactions with China should not be mistaken for 'google taking the high ground'. Google was already losing horribly to Baidu to the point where they were giving away free music in order to try and gain users ( http://www.drmwatch.com/ocr/article.php/3726636 http://www.drmwatch.com/ocr/article.php/3726636 ). They made a sensible decision to leave, but framed it as a human rights issue to the media in order to gain sympathy. In no ways am I defending Baidu or China. I am just saying they didn't leave because of their lofty morals.

moultano 16y ago
>I am just saying they didn't leave because of their lofty morals. So they risked giving up 40% market share for the hell of it?
- gamble 16y ago
  Market share != revenue. China only represented 1% of Google's revenue when they pulled out. They saw the writing on the wall - China would not allow foreign Internet companies to be successful in the long term - and decided to pull out before corporate espionage transferred all of their technology to Chinese competitors. It's a bit much to paint that as some bold moral stand. They were fine with censorship for four years - why did it suddenly become so objectionable?
  - juvenn 16y ago
    Since the sensorship is beyond what Google's founders had expected. Even we native Chinese had not expected that then. However, given they have invested so much on the Free Music Plan, and the market was rewarding, why, all of sudden, they pulled their feet? And risking of losing the world's largest and emerging market? Though, I agree there are multiple causes about that. But simply thinking they pulled because they were losing ...
  - ratsbane 16y ago
    YouTube only represents a tiny portion (<1%) of Google's revenue. GMail, Google Docs, Google Earth, etc. only represent a tiny portion of Google's revenue. While your larger point may be correct (though I hope not) they've always shown willingness and ability to invest in market share for the long term - and 40% of China's search market is kind of a big deal.

rdtsc 16y ago

> Google has always been known for their lofty ideals ... Notice you said "they are _known_ for their lofty ideals" it doesn't mean they live by their ideals. > They are the company you can trust to walk away from billions... If they already make hundreds of billions, walking away from 1 billion doesn't seem that bad in exchange for a PR win and more billions comming in the future. > 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. My personal measure for company idealism is this : "the amount of revenue (both long and short term) they are willing to give up in order to abide by their ideals". Was China a major market for them? No. They raised a PR stink only after they realized it was lost cause and they might as well drum up some PR points for it. Then capturing of too much private data -- well, if it was a lawsuit coming because somone could have leaked it, there's not much idealism at work there as damage control. Changing their rules to block spammers -- also just trying to cut out the irrelevant noise, to make their ads more focused. > I've been a Google fan boy for a long time but this week they lost my respect. I have set asside my respect for Google after their IPO. Not because they did anything wrong, but because I knew it would come to this. Don't get me wrong, they are still a good money making machine, but that's all they are -- a big friggin' money making machine. Google doesn't have a soul, it doesn't have a moral sense, it is here to make money. If it stops making money it wil vanish. If telling people you are "good and not evil" makes money, they'll tell people that, if getting in bed with Verizon makes them money -- so be it. I for one, don't blame Google. They are just now performing according to my expectations and behaving like a large, publically owned company should behave. I am still baffled at the large number of intelligent and rational individuals who have been misled by Google's PR over these years.