6 ms·
Google, Just Cut The BS And Give The Gordon Gekko Speech Already
- moultano 16y agoCan someone explain to me how they think less than full net-neutrality benefits Google? I didn't understand that argument in this article, or any of the previous ones.
- raganwald 16y agoClosing the door to the country club works if you're already inside when the door closes. Google's agreement with Verizon positions them inside. Startups and companies offering services we haven't even dreamt of yet are on the outside.
- jemfinch 16y agoExactly which part of the proposal does that?
- moultano 16y ago>Google's agreement with Verizon positions them inside. No part of this agreement creates any business relationship between Verizon and Google. I'm still not understanding.
- raganwald 16y agoDoesn't the agreement position existing web services like HTML over HTTP in an advantageous position over services yet to be named? And doesn't Google's current revenue stream depend on this? Since Google dominates current services, it doesn't need to monopolize them, just ensure that anything new coming along has some hurdles to clear.
- moultano 16y agoWell I certainly give you credit for delivering an argument that I haven't heard before, though I don't know how you'd get that out of the proposal. Is HTML over HTTP how you're interpreting the "public internet" bit?
- DannoHung 16y agoWrong layer as I understand it. Seems more like it's trying to allow the providers to set transport prioritization, not application layer.
- ippisl 16y agoIt's not only on the app layer: """ One is a provision that would let broadband providers offer "additional, differentiated services," that would be not be subject to the same rules as the open internet. These would possibly include "health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options." """
- chengas123 16y agoIsn't that necessary though? If your surgeon is operating on you remotely, don't you want those packets prioritized over my LOL Cats download? It seems there are services that are impossible to provide without quality of service guarantees.
- skymt 16y agoSo you think Google's planning to offer prioritized services to Android users? YouTube seems a likely pick.
- SandB0x 16y agoIt's all good, there's nothing to understand. The article is just fluff. A troll headline and no new information or insight.
- skymt 16y agoSpeculation: net-neutrality compromise in the wireless space could help Google's relationship with carriers. Google can't afford to fight with their Android partners while they have Apple to worry about.
- grandalf 16y agoGoogle wanted to prevent Apple from signing a non-neutrality deal with Verizon. Everyone always forgets how vulnerable Google is to competition. Best case for Google is net neutrality, second best case is to have signed deals with the top ISPs to prevent its competitors from signing google-harming deals with them.
- grandalf 16y agoNot sure why all my comments about this and Google's China stuff are blindly modded down w/o any reply/argument. If you disagree, explain why, maybe you'll convince me!
- Ardit20 16y agoIt is quite a strong claim. You could at least provide some authority which reports of Apple wanting to sign an agreement with Verizon.
- grandalf 16y agoAfter years of failing to reach a deal, Verizon is finally getting the iPhone 4G. Verizon's network performance makes QoS an issue. Imagine facetime over the mobile network, etc. Chances are Apple is very concerned about the Facetime experience and wants non-neutral QoS to benefit it. Further, Google is making tons of money on mobile ads, etc. All Apple needs to do is direct search traffic to Bing (or to Apple's own search engine) and that's a significant revenue boost. Search is no longer a hard problem. Microsoft cloned Google search fairly quickly and is very likely to help Apple by offering a good deal on revenue sharing. These factors combine to suggest that Google is VERY worried about an Apple/Verizon deal. Imagine if tens of millions more iPads are sold, each with Verizon 4G and non-net-neutral search redirects. Does anyone really think consumers would care? Bing and Google return almost identical results, and Apple is probably less than two years away from being able to engineer its own Google caliber search engine. I think that what people forget about Google is that in spite of all the brilliant engineering (which is surely unrivaled) most of the actual revenue comes from simple search which is very much threatened by net non-neutrality. Google was forced to backpedal on its previous stance out of the necessity to stop Apple from making a google-killing deal with Verizon. All this is speculative and based on speculation about how successful Apple's devices will be on Verizon (and how little customers care which search engine handles their searches). But Billions of dollars are enough to make any company change course on a dime.
- txxxxd 16y agoI don't follow the argument either. My understanding is: Before agreement: - wired: unregulated - wireless: unregulated. After agreement: - wired: net neutrality - wireless: unregulated but reviewed yearly We all benefit from wired NN. Google didn't gain any special privilege here.
- gamble 16y agoExcept that the proposal for wired networks has giant loopholes, and one can easily interpret this deal as a fig leaf designed to get the issue off the table so that the network providers can create a reality on the ground that makes further legislation impossible.
- moultano 16y agoIt seemed to me that the loopholes are designed to exactly cut around the services people are already offering, like prioritizing your cable tv over your cable internet, and blocking botnets.
- wyclif 16y agofig leaf Olive branch?
- msbarnett 16y agoNo, he said what he meant. An olive branch is a peace-offering. A fig leaf is a token cover-up gesture that doesn't fool anyone.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- gamble 16y agoGoogle's problem is not that net neutrality is bad for them, exactly, but that Verizon loathes it. And Google is utterly dependent on Verizon pushing Android. Half of all Android phones are Droids on Verizon, and you can ascribe a lot of that to Verizon's aggressive marketing campaign. In fact, I think you can argue that Android is more Verizon's brand now than Google's. So Google has a lot to lose by antagonizing the linchpin of its mobile strategy. In addition, now that Android sales have taken off Google isn't an outsider looking in at an industry whose gatekeepers could easily shut them out from mobile search and advertising. They own the #2 platform, and they've got enough pull to ensure that Google gets a piece of the mobile pie - which means that net neutrality isn't worth as much to Google as it was two years ago. This article is spot-on. Google was enthusiastic about net neutrality when it was essential to their financial success. Now that it has a cost, they're discovering the virtues of compromise... which wouldn't be an issue without the relentless Google PR about how principled they are. As pg said once, the trick with declaring that you're not evil is that people will hold you to it.
- orangecat 16y agoExactly correct. Google can afford to stand up to the Chinese government, but not Verizon. This should tell us something about what we've allowed the wireless "market" to come to.
- nir 16y agoAt least as long as iPhone is AT&T only, doesn't Verizon need Android as much as it needs Verizon?
- parallax7d 16y agoYeah, google could stand up to verizon if they wanted, they would just rather play ball now adays.
- orangecat 16y agoAt least as long as iPhone is AT&T only Which is probably a few more months. Yes there have been iPhone/Verizon rumors forever, but I get the impression they're real this time.
- nanairo 16y agoIt is true that anything less than net neutrality is not good for Google. But it's even worse for its competitors, especially future competitors. Once you are at the top, and you got the majority of the market, your best actions (in monetary terms) is to stop entrants.
- macrael 16y agoThe idea is that a non-neutral net favors people with deep pockets. Google has deep pockets, therefore a non-neutral net benefits Google. Google can pay big money to prioritize their traffic to their devices over other traffic that cannot pay. That creates a barrier to entry and competition that does not exist today.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- moultano 16y agoSo your worry is that Google will start paying to prioritize traffic in the wireless space?
- macrael 16y agoYes. It's not like Google is going to go ahead and say "well let's squash the competition by paying for prioritized traffic for all of our properties." It will be more like something along the lines of "hey let's get android OS updates onto user's phones faster, we can pay to have that "updating service" have higher priority than normal http traffic." Updates are big files, and people don't want to wait hours for an OTA download, so bump up the speed a bit. But from there it is a slippery slope.
- moultano 16y agoI don't see that as a slippery slope. Those sorts of subtleties are exactly what makes this a complicated issue to address with law, and exactly what this agreement tries to define with some specificity.
- macrael 16y agoBut it doesn't, really. I think that that sort of service could be allowed even for wired traffic with the language they are using. And, at the moment, they are putting no restrictions on wireless. As it is, if any of the telco's started seriously violating net-neutrality, that could actually become a catalyst for real legislation. That is a check on the isp's. If we adopt this suggestion into law, it gives the giants something to hide behind. "Oh, you don't like that we are selling a "video service" that pipes youtube to your phone? Well, bring it up at our review a year from now." A year is a long time in this industry. Perhaps a year from now they claim that they can't afford to pay for the LTE infrastructure being utilized for this youtube pipe without the special service fee, or people will just dislike having their youtube run at a slower bandwidth. so it continues. By saying "anything goes" we are letting the isp's set the terms of net neutrality. And the isp's have a terrible history when it comes to treating customers right.
- bobbyi 16y agoLess than full net-neutrality is good for big players who can take advantage of the situation and negotiate deals that are favorable for themselves. It is bad for small players and startups who would like to compete with the established players on equal terms.
- bryanh 16y agoIt was about time someone said something to this effect. Net neutrality aside, Google is a public company. They have shareholders. From what it sounds like, Larry and Sergey are more or less full blown academics and therefore idealistic. Problem is, they aren't the parents of a Stanford project anymore but instead a multi-billion, multi-national corporation with thousands of shareholders, employees and customers. Could they have approached net-neutrality with a "cut off your nose to spite your face" approach? Absolutely. Could they have won out in the face of adversity? Maybe. Would it have been good business? Most assuredly not. Google in acting in self-preservation; nothing more, nothing less. They aren't martyrs. I can understand if you are upset about them not admitting this fact, but anything else is naive.
- pbz 16y agoThat depends on how this outrage develops. If it turns out that it hurts recruiting in the future, damages morale, or flat out pisses off a sizable number of people who now have a beef with Google, then it may hurt them more than it helps them. Granted, all these side-effects are intangibles; hard to measure and mostly ignored. However, the question of does it make business sense is a bit more complex than tallying up the balance sheet.
- Pahalial 16y agoActually, the "most assuredly not" in your post is debatable. One could put forward the argument that they've had the buy-in they've had -despite brouhahas like the gmail context-sensitive ads- largely because the tech/expert community at large understood they were headed by idealists. That trickled down through op-eds and family/friends recommendations. Would an "all or nothing" net neutrality position be, erm, unconventional business? Absolutely. Would anyone have believed before Google's arrival that an ad company would be the single biggest name on the Internet? Again, debatable.
- bryanh 16y agoGood point, but I think Google sees the writing on the wall. Would they like pure net-neutrality? I am sure they would, but I think they are realists and know that in the end, profits win. They want a piece of those profits and are trying to compromise a lesser of evils. Just my guess.
- TotlolRon 16y agoWhat makes people think Google is capable of delivering a well-versed argument in a charismatic manner?
- toddh 16y agoSince cellphones are merely a convenient connection to a backbone network, would it make sense to develop and promote a wifi system with automated handoff between access points that can bypass cell protocols altogether? Being in the clutches of Verizon and ATT doesn't sound like a good strategy.
- gruseom 16y agoI found this the most interesting part of the article: In private conversations with Googlers and ex-Googlers over the past couple of days, the vast majority of them seem to be disturbed by what Google is doing here as well. If that's accurate, it's significant: it means this isn't all a big misunderstanding, and hints at how much damage Google could potentially do to itself here. I still think they're smart enough not to let that happen, though it does look like they've painted themselves into a corner. I wonder if they realized how tremendous an asset their standing up for net neutrality was.