6 ms·

Chill The F*% out over the Google/Verizon Proposal

42 points by apgwoz 16y ago

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
invisible 16y ago
It is sad that most people jump on the bandwagon without really grasping what Google is trying to accomplish. I think the author frames it pretty nicely towards the end with, basically, if we don't play the game we won't get to make the rules. Google is trying to play the game - it has no incentive to NOT have neutrality on the Internet. Most of Google's best products have been start ups that they bought (and a lack of some neutrality on the Internet would put a damper on that). Instead, we get cries of Google running afoul and that (somehow) every intellectual person at Google is now "evil" and bent on world domination.
- waterlesscloud 16y ago
  This is called "being co-opted by the system". It's not evil in itself, but you no longer get to pretend to be idealistic once you've done it.
  - invisible 16y ago
    I do not think that being realistic necessarily means being bad. It is unrealistic to expect everyone to get along and the world to be great without some abiding laws that those involved agree upon. The fact that things have been luckily good so far is really not the whole story. These carriers are itching to reduce network load, and without any rules they could begin making decisions to lower costs without directly harming customers. This could be very toxic for what the Internet stands for, and while it's unthinkable today it is possible in the future.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    Google never said "Be idealistic." They said "Don't be evil." They lost any pretense of idealism when they expanded into China. That was a tough moral call. So was this. Some moral calls are tough to make, and maybe Google made the wrong calls, but there's a difference between "don't be evil" and "be idealistic and pure and unquestionable in your motives, and when it comes to the hard questions, just punt on them".
grandalf 16y ago
Bottom line is that Google's advocacy of net neutrality was an attempt to innovate via legislation... by making a major competitive force illegal. There are strong arguments both for and against net neutrality, and Google did itself a disservice by trying to rally people behind the idea that net neutrality is the "good" option and anything else is "evil". That sort of simple binary good/bad is reminiscent of George W. Bush's approach to selling people on his war strategy. The fact is, it doesn't matter whether we have laws enforcing net neutrality... for most things a neutral net is what consumers expect and demand. For the marginal things where consumers don't care (possibly including internet search) then consumers still win.
gamble 16y ago
Google fans: You know how when Apple does something unsavory to further its own business interests, and Apple fans spin the most elaborate arguments to show how Apple doing what's best for Apple is actually in everyone's interest? This is your chance to be different.
- houseabsolute 16y ago
  What if I'm not a Google fan but still don't think it's that big of a deal?
- invisible 16y ago
  What about when people spin a story out-of-control and sensationalizes to the extreme? Or that's not an option...? People aren't even reporting on FACTS, they're making up shit to say Google doesn't support net neutrality and wants the net to be ruled by Google alone. That is total sensationalism and I cannot believe you are resorting to: "Oh, you guys are fans that cannot think because you don't ridicule Google."
  - gamble 16y ago
    The only fact here is that Google very quickly switched from a whole-hearted support of net neutrality to, at best, a compromised position endorsed by Verizon, a company with a long history of outright opposition to net neutrality and one that has significant leverage over Google thanks to Droid sales. Their change of heart occurred very shortly after Android began to be perceived as a success and after rumors of a Verizon iPhone. Fundamentally, this is an issue of trust. The deal Google is proposing creates significant wiggle room for the landline carriers, and asks us to trust that the issue will be revisited for wireless carriers somewhere down the road, even though an entrenched discriminatory regime will be much more difficult to dislodge if it becomes a reality on the ground. There is a fairly strong net neutrality movement today, even without Google, an apparently sympathetic FCC, and a Democratic Congress capable of passing a net neutrality bill. There will not be a better opportunity to legislate net neutrality for years, given the likely results of the upcoming midterms. Google is asking us to trust them and wait, when waiting will almost certainly put the enemies of net neutrality into a stronger position. Personally, I don't see a lot of reason to trust Google on this issue. They are like a lifelong Republican who suddenly discovered the attraction of left-wing politics after losing his primary and joining the Democrats.
hartror 16y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
cschep 16y ago
Just spell out fuck, you're making us all think it. (thank you Louis c.k.)
- davidw 16y ago
  Or, even better, find a less colloquial way of expressing yourself. Not that I have a problem with the word 'fuck'; just that it's not really appropriate for most serious discussions.
yanw 16y ago
I think that most of the uproar is about people interpreting this agreement as a direct business deal and Google will get it's traffic sped up and that they are somehow legislating and neither is true. Also many forget that Verizon is the company owning the pipes and spectrum, not Google, and as much as it's unpleasant to think about, NN won't be put into law without teleco input.
- ryanhuff 16y ago
  Do you acknowledge that Google and Verizon now have an interesting business relationship, where the success of one party in the mobile space directly influences the other? Vested interests do drive people and companies to behave differently. In this case, its reasonable to wonder if Google has changed from champion of NN to a company that sees its next great revenue pool (mobile) forming before its eyes.
  - yanw 16y ago
    I suppose many factors were considered including the fact that the ruling against the FCC did derail the neutrality cause, and who's to say that if the teleco lobbyists are through with any suggested bill, things wouldn't be much worse, so they managed to agree on a couple of positive point and concede a couple of other points get things going.
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
    You appear to be hinting at the "android" argument that I've never seen spelled out properly. Care to explain why this makes such a big difference compared with say HQ Youtube carrying TV shows to homes supplied with internet by Verizon? Because to my euro eyes it seems like US fanboys cheering on Apple, iPhones and AT&T, which makes Google, Android and Verizon the "baddies" in this tag team match. And yet you get Android phones on all carriers, including AT&T, and the iPhone seems to be coming to Verizon (and I assume all other carriers once exclusivity is broken, like in many other countries) so these "teams" are basically fiction. So where's the real beef here?
sbierwagen 16y ago
I hate self-censoring like this. Either use fuck, or don't. If you don't want to use the word fuck, then use another word. It's easy to be equally harsh. "Chill the hell out about the Google/Verizon proposal." "Freaking out about the Google/Verizon proposal? You're a retard." The point of censoring is that it's externally imposed. Swear filters on poorly designed multiplayer video games. Internet forums. When you self-censor, you announce that you spend so much time in such places that it has irrevocably altered your writing.
metamemetics 16y ago
This pretty much all started because of a single New York Times article. Everywhere reported that Google was requiring Verizon to abide by net neutrality except the NYT which said it was destroying net-neutrality (pretty hard to do when it never existed). The fact that everyone on the internet reads the NYT and Gawker (and Gawker just reports on NYT reports) lead to some sort of vicious rabble-rousing feedback cycle. The power of the media.

42 points by apgwoz 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

It is sad that most people jump on the bandwagon without really grasping what Google is trying to accomplish. I think the author frames it pretty nicely towards the end with, basically, if we don't play the game we won't get to make the rules. Google is trying to play the game - it has no incentive to NOT have neutrality on the Internet. Most of Google's best products have been start ups that they bought (and a lack of some neutrality on the Internet would put a damper on that). Instead, we get cries of Google running afoul and that (somehow) every intellectual person at Google is now "evil" and bent on world domination.

waterlesscloud 16y ago
This is called "being co-opted by the system". It's not evil in itself, but you no longer get to pretend to be idealistic once you've done it.
- invisible 16y ago
  I do not think that being realistic necessarily means being bad. It is unrealistic to expect everyone to get along and the world to be great without some abiding laws that those involved agree upon. The fact that things have been luckily good so far is really not the whole story. These carriers are itching to reduce network load, and without any rules they could begin making decisions to lower costs without directly harming customers. This could be very toxic for what the Internet stands for, and while it's unthinkable today it is possible in the future.
- philwelch 16y ago
  Google never said "Be idealistic." They said "Don't be evil." They lost any pretense of idealism when they expanded into China. That was a tough moral call. So was this. Some moral calls are tough to make, and maybe Google made the wrong calls, but there's a difference between "don't be evil" and "be idealistic and pure and unquestionable in your motives, and when it comes to the hard questions, just punt on them".

grandalf 16y ago

Bottom line is that Google's advocacy of net neutrality was an attempt to innovate via legislation... by making a major competitive force illegal. There are strong arguments both for and against net neutrality, and Google did itself a disservice by trying to rally people behind the idea that net neutrality is the "good" option and anything else is "evil". That sort of simple binary good/bad is reminiscent of George W. Bush's approach to selling people on his war strategy. The fact is, it doesn't matter whether we have laws enforcing net neutrality... for most things a neutral net is what consumers expect and demand. For the marginal things where consumers don't care (possibly including internet search) then consumers still win.

gamble 16y ago

Google fans: You know how when Apple does something unsavory to further its own business interests, and Apple fans spin the most elaborate arguments to show how Apple doing what's best for Apple is actually in everyone's interest? This is your chance to be different.

houseabsolute 16y ago
What if I'm not a Google fan but still don't think it's that big of a deal?
invisible 16y ago
What about when people spin a story out-of-control and sensationalizes to the extreme? Or that's not an option...? People aren't even reporting on FACTS, they're making up shit to say Google doesn't support net neutrality and wants the net to be ruled by Google alone. That is total sensationalism and I cannot believe you are resorting to: "Oh, you guys are fans that cannot think because you don't ridicule Google."
- gamble 16y ago
  The only fact here is that Google very quickly switched from a whole-hearted support of net neutrality to, at best, a compromised position endorsed by Verizon, a company with a long history of outright opposition to net neutrality and one that has significant leverage over Google thanks to Droid sales. Their change of heart occurred very shortly after Android began to be perceived as a success and after rumors of a Verizon iPhone. Fundamentally, this is an issue of trust. The deal Google is proposing creates significant wiggle room for the landline carriers, and asks us to trust that the issue will be revisited for wireless carriers somewhere down the road, even though an entrenched discriminatory regime will be much more difficult to dislodge if it becomes a reality on the ground. There is a fairly strong net neutrality movement today, even without Google, an apparently sympathetic FCC, and a Democratic Congress capable of passing a net neutrality bill. There will not be a better opportunity to legislate net neutrality for years, given the likely results of the upcoming midterms. Google is asking us to trust them and wait, when waiting will almost certainly put the enemies of net neutrality into a stronger position. Personally, I don't see a lot of reason to trust Google on this issue. They are like a lifelong Republican who suddenly discovered the attraction of left-wing politics after losing his primary and joining the Democrats.

hartror 16y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

cschep 16y ago

Just spell out fuck, you're making us all think it. (thank you Louis c.k.)

davidw 16y ago
Or, even better, find a less colloquial way of expressing yourself. Not that I have a problem with the word 'fuck'; just that it's not really appropriate for most serious discussions.

yanw 16y ago

I think that most of the uproar is about people interpreting this agreement as a direct business deal and Google will get it's traffic sped up and that they are somehow legislating and neither is true. Also many forget that Verizon is the company owning the pipes and spectrum, not Google, and as much as it's unpleasant to think about, NN won't be put into law without teleco input.

ryanhuff 16y ago
Do you acknowledge that Google and Verizon now have an interesting business relationship, where the success of one party in the mobile space directly influences the other? Vested interests do drive people and companies to behave differently. In this case, its reasonable to wonder if Google has changed from champion of NN to a company that sees its next great revenue pool (mobile) forming before its eyes.
- yanw 16y ago
  I suppose many factors were considered including the fact that the ruling against the FCC did derail the neutrality cause, and who's to say that if the teleco lobbyists are through with any suggested bill, things wouldn't be much worse, so they managed to agree on a couple of positive point and concede a couple of other points get things going.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  You appear to be hinting at the "android" argument that I've never seen spelled out properly. Care to explain why this makes such a big difference compared with say HQ Youtube carrying TV shows to homes supplied with internet by Verizon? Because to my euro eyes it seems like US fanboys cheering on Apple, iPhones and AT&T, which makes Google, Android and Verizon the "baddies" in this tag team match. And yet you get Android phones on all carriers, including AT&T, and the iPhone seems to be coming to Verizon (and I assume all other carriers once exclusivity is broken, like in many other countries) so these "teams" are basically fiction. So where's the real beef here?

sbierwagen 16y ago

I hate self-censoring like this. Either use fuck, or don't. If you don't want to use the word fuck, then use another word. It's easy to be equally harsh. "Chill the hell out about the Google/Verizon proposal." "Freaking out about the Google/Verizon proposal? You're a retard." The point of censoring is that it's externally imposed. Swear filters on poorly designed multiplayer video games. Internet forums. When you self-censor, you announce that you spend so much time in such places that it has irrevocably altered your writing.

metamemetics 16y ago

This pretty much all started because of a single New York Times article. Everywhere reported that Google was requiring Verizon to abide by net neutrality except the NYT which said it was destroying net-neutrality (pretty hard to do when it never existed). The fact that everyone on the internet reads the NYT and Gawker (and Gawker just reports on NYT reports) lead to some sort of vicious rabble-rousing feedback cycle. The power of the media.