23 ms·

Google's Growing Silence on Saving Open Internet Leaves Fight to Startups

180 points by doctorshady 12y ago

Zigurd 12y ago
I would mark the turning point for Microsoft from the great disrupter of the mainframe and minicomputer age to sclerotic incumbent at the point where they fully embraced DRM and announced Palladium. At that point, "disruption" was limited to what content publishers would approve of. A Google that kowtows to Comcast will be similarly uninteresting.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  Google was already a big pusher of HTML5/OS DRM, which I thought was quite similar to the Palladium debacle.
  - wfjackson 12y ago
    Not to mention that Chromebooks are one of the most heavy handed uses of DRM in the wild without even native apps with an App Store like iOS or Windows RT has. A Google sign in is needed even to login and the only native apps are Google's own. How is this different or better than Palladium? They also include the WideVine DRM that they acquired and use for Netflix which is not compatible with desktop Linux which is still forced to use a Silverlight port. The only redeeming feature is that you can jump through hoops and install Linux(while suffering through an annoying prompt at every boot), which can be done on any Windows PC anyway, but >95% of Chromebook buyers are going to be locked in. IE, Chrome and Safari teaming up to implement HTML5 DRM forced Firefox(which can't afford to be bundled in with every Java, Flash and Acrobat update/install like Chrome is) to follow suit. And they only recently stopped parsing e-mail in Google Apps for Schools(which they give away for free) and Business(paid) to build ad profiles to show in other Google properties after they couldn't continue telling the lies they were telling to the public in federal court. They also have a program where they track Android and iOS users to detect when they enter a store for ads tracking. Which part of all this is about the open internet again?
    - tcelfer 12y ago
      > A Google sign in is needed even to login and the only native apps are Google's own. How is this different or better than Palladium? In a technical sense, it's very different from Palladium. Given the machine is sold as a device to better connect to Google's services and you can in fact get things done without a Google sign on, it seems qualitatively different as well. But why inject fact into a marvellous diatribe? > They also include the WideVine DRM that they acquired and use for Netflix which is not compatible with desktop Linux which is still forced to use a Silverlight port. This is Netflix's decision and stipulation. Google has their own suite of technologies they'd surely prefer (or even better, for Netflix to integrate with Google's cloud platform). As for Firefox's dilemma, I'm not sure anyone cares how they feel or what they do. They've systematically failed the consumer marketplace as a force for openness for years now. Any cred they may have had here was spent long ago. > The only redeeming feature is that you can jump through hoops and install Linux(while suffering through an annoying prompt at every boot), which can be done on any Windows PC anyway, but >95% of Chromebook buyers are going to be locked in. Again that's not entirely true, although in this case it depends on the model number. What's more, you can also run ubuntu's environment alongside the chrome OS without requiring a full reinstall. > And they only recently stopped parsing e-mail in Google Apps for Schools(which they give away for free) and Business(paid) to build ad profiles to show in other Google properties after they couldn't continue telling the lies they were telling to the public in federal court. That's a curious interpretation of the case. It mostly stems from this interesting legal idea that using the corpus of a text for ad processing is somehow akin to the full violation of privacy that a human scanning the document would have. I am not sure any of us are entirely comfortable with either interpretation, but ad targeting for gapps has never not happened nor has it ever been anything but an obvious monetization model for an otherwise free service. So... yeah. Death of freedom I guess. > Which part of this is about the open internet again? When did we start conflating "the Open Internet" with "using analytics for advertising?" by the way. I don't see a contradiction between the two. The internet can be "open" and vendors can watch their wifi routers for when known device ids try to connect and build profiles and sell that data. They're orthogonal.
      - ntakasaki 12y ago
greggman 12y ago
WAT? https://www.google.com/takeaction/ https://www.google.com/takeaction/
- revscat 12y ago
  They are not publicly advocating for net neutrality, at least not to the degree that they were during the 2010 fight.
- sp332 12y ago
  That site hasn't changed in at least 6 months. https://web.archive.org/web/20131201061152/https://www.google.com/takeaction/ https://web.archive.org/web/20131201061152/https://www.googl...
  - greggman 12y ago
    Just because the front page isn't changing doesn't mean the rest of the site isn't. This page was forwarded a month ago by signing up at the page above. https://web.archive.org/web/20140603232634*/http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/saferemail/ https://web.archive.org/web/20140603232634*/http://www.googl...
- walterbell 12y ago
  Is AOL is spending more on net neutrality lobbying than Google? http://www.dailydot.com/politics/lobbyists-net-neutrality-fcc/ http://www.dailydot.com/politics/lobbyists-net-neutrality-fc... If only there was a convenient place where Google could show advertisements in favor of net neutrality..
  - angersock 12y ago
    How would we ever find such a site? The internet is a big place...
    - walterbell 12y ago
      Google shows ads for other companies, on their own properties (including YouTube) and on partner sites. Could they run ads about net neutrality on their large ad network?
apozem 12y ago
I can't help but worry this is because Google knows how much a "fast lane" could help it. They've got the cash to deliver their product at super speeds and get a leg up on everybody else who doesn't.
- eunoia 12y ago
  I do believe that's the point. Big companies like Netflix benefit from their 'peering' deals. Sure costs go up, but they also create a walled garden to keep out any upstart competition.
  - smacktoward 12y ago
    If that's their attitude, it's short-sighted on Netflix's part. No matter how much money they can throw at ISPs, I guarantee Amazon can throw more. So if streaming video performance comes down to who can throw the most money at ISPs for preferential treatment of their packets, it's hard to imagine Netflix not getting clobbered in that contest.
    - eunoia 12y ago
      I think it's a mistake to consider streaming performance the only variable on which success in that business is predicated. Content and customer relationships have to be factored in as well, probably much else. Your point is valid though. Maybe the conclusion is that such walled gardens aren't useful in competition between established players, merely to make disruption from a a startup of little means but good ideas more difficult?
- cyorir 12y ago
  At the same time, it's not like Google is arguing against net neutrality either. For a large company like Google, some services (like, say, Youtube, which is bandwidth-intensive) may have a lot to gain from a "fast lane," but that company may also have a lot of smaller services that do not stand to gain as much. I do not think Google will see net neutrality policies as equally impacting all of its products, but as an issue that affects different products in different ways. Likewise, a "fast lane" costs money, and I suspect it will cost more money for a larger, high-bandwidth product, so for Google the concern will be whether or not pricing works in its favor.
ArtDev 12y ago
This makes me concerned about the future of the internet. I get it why big companies want to stifle innovation and competition, but its just plain wrong.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
dm2 12y ago
Why does everyone assume it's Google's responsibility to save the internet? Yes, they do extremely great things for the world, the internet, and to protect privacy and people's rights, but rather than criticize them when they don't step up to the plate every single time, why not criticize other companies for not even considering it and failing to ever act. I've seen over 75% of the people I know give thousands of dollars to Apple, but Apple gives back nothing to the world, they should be the ones criticized. How can a company such as Apple have hundreds of billions of dollars and not even consider helping the world with all of that extra money? Imagine the amazingly great things they could do if they weren't so focused on hoarding cash and ensuring nobody "steals" their rounded corner idea. The original article title is just link-bait anyways, it even says at the bottom, "Google hasn't gone completely silent. It and Facebook are members of the Internet Association, which in April urged the FCC to adopt open-Internet rules." So then what's the point of the article? To say that Google has been fighting for open-internet for 8+ years and that it helped form a group to help achieve that goal? Edit: If you disagree then please comment. I knew this wasn't going to be a popular thing to post but I think the discussion is more important than the karma points.
- jbooth 12y ago
  Because they're arguably the company most invested in an open internet. 2/3 of internet users are google users (made up statistic). That means that they're losing 2/3 of whatever if the internet is hurt. If they're not going to fight, who is?
  - dm2 12y ago
    I'm not necessarily talking about just the Net Neutrality issue, it seems pretty obvious that the internet should not be remodeled after Cable TV. Plus, there's no real way to enforce it unless they purposely slow down VPN traffic, which would make me look for a new internet company immediately.
    - ianlevesque 12y ago
      Look for but not find. 28% of Americans have only one ISP choice. http://mobile.extremetech.com/latest/221099-woe-is-isp-30-percent-of-americans-cant-choose-their-service-provider http://mobile.extremetech.com/latest/221099-woe-is-isp-30-pe...
IBM 12y ago
Net neutrality proponents regularly couch their rhetoric in being an issue for the public's interest. To me it seems like one industry (tech/web companies) jockeying over another industry (telcos/cable) to accrue the benefits/cost savings to themselves. Start ups and other businesses that exist on the web don't like the idea of sponsored data because it could possibly raise their costs of doing business, but it isn't something the public should care about and that government should step in to prevent. No one is providing Jolla with protections or subsidies to better compete with Apple or Samsung, but yet the web companies in pushing for net neutrality (and waging a great PR campaign that enlists the greater public to their side) are essentially asking for one. Maybe your music start up will have to pay carriers to better compete with Spotify or Apple, that's really your problem and perhaps you'll have to suck up the additional operating expense. As for Google, they're staying out of this fight not just because they could benefit from sponsored data, but also because they seem intent on getting into the ISP business themselves. They recently added a new executive in charge of "Access and Energy"[0]. This could be their first real business outside of advertising. I think it's befitting that a company, that is essentially a utility on the net, is getting into another utility-like business. [0] https://www.google.com/about/company/facts/management/ https://www.google.com/about/company/facts/management/
- nostrademons 12y ago
  The problem is that companies don't suck up the operating expense. They pass it along to consumers. Most Internet companies have enough competitive leverage that they'll just raise prices or show my ads - tech is winner-take-all, so it's not like consumers have a lot of choices. And those industries that don't have this leverage (like Internet radio or podcasting) will simply cease to exist, which is also bad for consumers.
- pfraze 12y ago
  The public would prefer to have the most possible value out of their internet service. While charging content-hosts extra for bandwidth can increase the quality of those services, it risks degrading the breadth of content, the ease of small-business- and user-publishing, and the level of competition in the content- and data-service market. It's a trade of dubious value for consumers and for data services.
yeukhon 12y ago
I actually want to propose a slightly different reading on Google's "silence." Google isn't that silent to be honest. It did and still running campaign on their social media accounts to urge people to fight for net neutrality. At the same time, they are not the most notable foreground fighter either. Google is now called evil these days after many accusations (most recently the Google map accusation, previously NSA allegations). So here is a catch. They will spend money lobby Washington and engaging online campaign, but they won't do too violently. They can still claim they did something (which in reality they do) and at the same time they can get away with the image that big corporation always wins. In the end, they can still benefit from net neutrality. If people lose, Google may still be able to gain something out of the lost (for example, some business gain, or pointing finger at D.C). If people win, so does Google. It's somewhat dumb to suggest this reading, but it may be true. On the other hand, one can argue that it is OKAY for a big corporation like Google to step in in a time like this and spend millions to lobby D.C (as opposed to other time, say, urging to pass a "monopoly protection bill" or "tax reduction bill"). I think it's worthwhile to remember that Google isn't dumb (it hires so many "top" and talented people). The policy team isn't made up of a bunch of 18 years old.
tzs 12y ago
> The rules have attracted more than 600,000 comments to the FCC’s website, including some filed after HBO’s John Oliver told his television audience “the Internet in its current form is not broken, and the FCC is currently taking steps to fix that.” That could backfire. The courts struck down the FCC's net neutrality rules. We are currently operating without net neutrality. The FCC is trying to restore net neutrality, using the same regulatory authority it used before, but this time consistent with the limits placed on it by the courts. The complaint of some net neutrality advocates is that this regulatory authority is not powerful enough after the limitations placed by the courts (it can prohibit "slow lanes", but cannot prohibit "fast lanes", only require that they be offered on a commercially reasonable, non-discriminatory basis). They want the FCC to switch to a different, more powerful, regulatory authority. If people submit comments to the FCC modeled after what John Oliver said, saying that the internet is fine as is, and the FCC should not make changes, they are in effect saying that they do NOT want net neutrality.
- smutticus 12y ago
  We should all basically just get behind what the EFF is saying here. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/fcc-and-net-neutrality-way-forward https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/fcc-and-net-neutrality... It's tough for people like John Oliver to communicate to his audience anything other than, "Don't break the Internet." Indeed, part of the problem with net neutrality is confusion regarding what we mean by it. It's tough, but most people who are pro 'net neutrality' generally have the same idea of what they mean. They just might not understand how the Internet works, or how that relates to the FCC.
djyaz1200 12y ago
Google is responding by building it's own physical network infrastructure nationwide. Google Fiber is a big middle finger to the telecom industry. If Google is good at anything it's protecting Google.
ejain 12y ago
To be fair, Goggle's motto isn't "be a force for the good", but "don't be evil".
- justin66 12y ago
  When you're that big, inaction is a force in and of itself.
  - diminoten 12y ago
    It's not Google's responsibility to save the Internet.
trhway 12y ago
Google with its 60B cash - $500 per US household - can build its own internet. Given Apple's 140B, MS's 80B cash, etc... and the likes of China and Russia building their own "Internet continents" - the "Open Internet" is pretty much gone (tomorrow definitely). Instead we need to prepare to how to live and do business in that new environment or build a new one - crypto, Tor, mesh, satellites, etc...

180 points by doctorshady 12y ago

I would mark the turning point for Microsoft from the great disrupter of the mainframe and minicomputer age to sclerotic incumbent at the point where they fully embraced DRM and announced Palladium. At that point, "disruption" was limited to what content publishers would approve of. A Google that kowtows to Comcast will be similarly uninteresting.

higherpurpose 12y ago
Google was already a big pusher of HTML5/OS DRM, which I thought was quite similar to the Palladium debacle.
- wfjackson 12y ago
  Not to mention that Chromebooks are one of the most heavy handed uses of DRM in the wild without even native apps with an App Store like iOS or Windows RT has. A Google sign in is needed even to login and the only native apps are Google's own. How is this different or better than Palladium? They also include the WideVine DRM that they acquired and use for Netflix which is not compatible with desktop Linux which is still forced to use a Silverlight port. The only redeeming feature is that you can jump through hoops and install Linux(while suffering through an annoying prompt at every boot), which can be done on any Windows PC anyway, but >95% of Chromebook buyers are going to be locked in. IE, Chrome and Safari teaming up to implement HTML5 DRM forced Firefox(which can't afford to be bundled in with every Java, Flash and Acrobat update/install like Chrome is) to follow suit. And they only recently stopped parsing e-mail in Google Apps for Schools(which they give away for free) and Business(paid) to build ad profiles to show in other Google properties after they couldn't continue telling the lies they were telling to the public in federal court. They also have a program where they track Android and iOS users to detect when they enter a store for ads tracking. Which part of all this is about the open internet again?
  - tcelfer 12y ago
    > A Google sign in is needed even to login and the only native apps are Google's own. How is this different or better than Palladium? In a technical sense, it's very different from Palladium. Given the machine is sold as a device to better connect to Google's services and you can in fact get things done without a Google sign on, it seems qualitatively different as well. But why inject fact into a marvellous diatribe? > They also include the WideVine DRM that they acquired and use for Netflix which is not compatible with desktop Linux which is still forced to use a Silverlight port. This is Netflix's decision and stipulation. Google has their own suite of technologies they'd surely prefer (or even better, for Netflix to integrate with Google's cloud platform). As for Firefox's dilemma, I'm not sure anyone cares how they feel or what they do. They've systematically failed the consumer marketplace as a force for openness for years now. Any cred they may have had here was spent long ago. > The only redeeming feature is that you can jump through hoops and install Linux(while suffering through an annoying prompt at every boot), which can be done on any Windows PC anyway, but >95% of Chromebook buyers are going to be locked in. Again that's not entirely true, although in this case it depends on the model number. What's more, you can also run ubuntu's environment alongside the chrome OS without requiring a full reinstall. > And they only recently stopped parsing e-mail in Google Apps for Schools(which they give away for free) and Business(paid) to build ad profiles to show in other Google properties after they couldn't continue telling the lies they were telling to the public in federal court. That's a curious interpretation of the case. It mostly stems from this interesting legal idea that using the corpus of a text for ad processing is somehow akin to the full violation of privacy that a human scanning the document would have. I am not sure any of us are entirely comfortable with either interpretation, but ad targeting for gapps has never not happened nor has it ever been anything but an obvious monetization model for an otherwise free service. So... yeah. Death of freedom I guess. > Which part of this is about the open internet again? When did we start conflating "the Open Internet" with "using analytics for advertising?" by the way. I don't see a contradiction between the two. The internet can be "open" and vendors can watch their wifi routers for when known device ids try to connect and build profiles and sell that data. They're orthogonal.
    - ntakasaki 12y ago

greggman 12y ago

WAT? https://www.google.com/takeaction/ https://www.google.com/takeaction/

revscat 12y ago
They are not publicly advocating for net neutrality, at least not to the degree that they were during the 2010 fight.
sp332 12y ago
That site hasn't changed in at least 6 months. https://web.archive.org/web/20131201061152/https://www.google.com/takeaction/ https://web.archive.org/web/20131201061152/https://www.googl...
- greggman 12y ago
  Just because the front page isn't changing doesn't mean the rest of the site isn't. This page was forwarded a month ago by signing up at the page above. https://web.archive.org/web/20140603232634*/http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/saferemail/ https://web.archive.org/web/20140603232634*/http://www.googl...
walterbell 12y ago
Is AOL is spending more on net neutrality lobbying than Google? http://www.dailydot.com/politics/lobbyists-net-neutrality-fcc/ http://www.dailydot.com/politics/lobbyists-net-neutrality-fc... If only there was a convenient place where Google could show advertisements in favor of net neutrality..
- angersock 12y ago
  How would we ever find such a site? The internet is a big place...
  - walterbell 12y ago
    Google shows ads for other companies, on their own properties (including YouTube) and on partner sites. Could they run ads about net neutrality on their large ad network?

apozem 12y ago

I can't help but worry this is because Google knows how much a "fast lane" could help it. They've got the cash to deliver their product at super speeds and get a leg up on everybody else who doesn't.

eunoia 12y ago
I do believe that's the point. Big companies like Netflix benefit from their 'peering' deals. Sure costs go up, but they also create a walled garden to keep out any upstart competition.
- smacktoward 12y ago
  If that's their attitude, it's short-sighted on Netflix's part. No matter how much money they can throw at ISPs, I guarantee Amazon can throw more. So if streaming video performance comes down to who can throw the most money at ISPs for preferential treatment of their packets, it's hard to imagine Netflix not getting clobbered in that contest.
  - eunoia 12y ago
    I think it's a mistake to consider streaming performance the only variable on which success in that business is predicated. Content and customer relationships have to be factored in as well, probably much else. Your point is valid though. Maybe the conclusion is that such walled gardens aren't useful in competition between established players, merely to make disruption from a a startup of little means but good ideas more difficult?
cyorir 12y ago
At the same time, it's not like Google is arguing against net neutrality either. For a large company like Google, some services (like, say, Youtube, which is bandwidth-intensive) may have a lot to gain from a "fast lane," but that company may also have a lot of smaller services that do not stand to gain as much. I do not think Google will see net neutrality policies as equally impacting all of its products, but as an issue that affects different products in different ways. Likewise, a "fast lane" costs money, and I suspect it will cost more money for a larger, high-bandwidth product, so for Google the concern will be whether or not pricing works in its favor.

ArtDev 12y ago

This makes me concerned about the future of the internet. I get it why big companies want to stifle innovation and competition, but its just plain wrong.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

dm2 12y ago

Why does everyone assume it's Google's responsibility to save the internet? Yes, they do extremely great things for the world, the internet, and to protect privacy and people's rights, but rather than criticize them when they don't step up to the plate every single time, why not criticize other companies for not even considering it and failing to ever act. I've seen over 75% of the people I know give thousands of dollars to Apple, but Apple gives back nothing to the world, they should be the ones criticized. How can a company such as Apple have hundreds of billions of dollars and not even consider helping the world with all of that extra money? Imagine the amazingly great things they could do if they weren't so focused on hoarding cash and ensuring nobody "steals" their rounded corner idea. The original article title is just link-bait anyways, it even says at the bottom, "Google hasn't gone completely silent. It and Facebook are members of the Internet Association, which in April urged the FCC to adopt open-Internet rules." So then what's the point of the article? To say that Google has been fighting for open-internet for 8+ years and that it helped form a group to help achieve that goal? Edit: If you disagree then please comment. I knew this wasn't going to be a popular thing to post but I think the discussion is more important than the karma points.

jbooth 12y ago
Because they're arguably the company most invested in an open internet. 2/3 of internet users are google users (made up statistic). That means that they're losing 2/3 of whatever if the internet is hurt. If they're not going to fight, who is?
- dm2 12y ago
  I'm not necessarily talking about just the Net Neutrality issue, it seems pretty obvious that the internet should not be remodeled after Cable TV. Plus, there's no real way to enforce it unless they purposely slow down VPN traffic, which would make me look for a new internet company immediately.
  - ianlevesque 12y ago
    Look for but not find. 28% of Americans have only one ISP choice. http://mobile.extremetech.com/latest/221099-woe-is-isp-30-percent-of-americans-cant-choose-their-service-provider http://mobile.extremetech.com/latest/221099-woe-is-isp-30-pe...

IBM 12y ago

Net neutrality proponents regularly couch their rhetoric in being an issue for the public's interest. To me it seems like one industry (tech/web companies) jockeying over another industry (telcos/cable) to accrue the benefits/cost savings to themselves. Start ups and other businesses that exist on the web don't like the idea of sponsored data because it could possibly raise their costs of doing business, but it isn't something the public should care about and that government should step in to prevent. No one is providing Jolla with protections or subsidies to better compete with Apple or Samsung, but yet the web companies in pushing for net neutrality (and waging a great PR campaign that enlists the greater public to their side) are essentially asking for one. Maybe your music start up will have to pay carriers to better compete with Spotify or Apple, that's really your problem and perhaps you'll have to suck up the additional operating expense. As for Google, they're staying out of this fight not just because they could benefit from sponsored data, but also because they seem intent on getting into the ISP business themselves. They recently added a new executive in charge of "Access and Energy"[0]. This could be their first real business outside of advertising. I think it's befitting that a company, that is essentially a utility on the net, is getting into another utility-like business. [0] https://www.google.com/about/company/facts/management/ https://www.google.com/about/company/facts/management/

nostrademons 12y ago
The problem is that companies don't suck up the operating expense. They pass it along to consumers. Most Internet companies have enough competitive leverage that they'll just raise prices or show my ads - tech is winner-take-all, so it's not like consumers have a lot of choices. And those industries that don't have this leverage (like Internet radio or podcasting) will simply cease to exist, which is also bad for consumers.
pfraze 12y ago
The public would prefer to have the most possible value out of their internet service. While charging content-hosts extra for bandwidth can increase the quality of those services, it risks degrading the breadth of content, the ease of small-business- and user-publishing, and the level of competition in the content- and data-service market. It's a trade of dubious value for consumers and for data services.

yeukhon 12y ago

I actually want to propose a slightly different reading on Google's "silence." Google isn't that silent to be honest. It did and still running campaign on their social media accounts to urge people to fight for net neutrality. At the same time, they are not the most notable foreground fighter either. Google is now called evil these days after many accusations (most recently the Google map accusation, previously NSA allegations). So here is a catch. They will spend money lobby Washington and engaging online campaign, but they won't do too violently. They can still claim they did something (which in reality they do) and at the same time they can get away with the image that big corporation always wins. In the end, they can still benefit from net neutrality. If people lose, Google may still be able to gain something out of the lost (for example, some business gain, or pointing finger at D.C). If people win, so does Google. It's somewhat dumb to suggest this reading, but it may be true. On the other hand, one can argue that it is OKAY for a big corporation like Google to step in in a time like this and spend millions to lobby D.C (as opposed to other time, say, urging to pass a "monopoly protection bill" or "tax reduction bill"). I think it's worthwhile to remember that Google isn't dumb (it hires so many "top" and talented people). The policy team isn't made up of a bunch of 18 years old.

tzs 12y ago

> The rules have attracted more than 600,000 comments to the FCC’s website, including some filed after HBO’s John Oliver told his television audience “the Internet in its current form is not broken, and the FCC is currently taking steps to fix that.” That could backfire. The courts struck down the FCC's net neutrality rules. We are currently operating without net neutrality. The FCC is trying to restore net neutrality, using the same regulatory authority it used before, but this time consistent with the limits placed on it by the courts. The complaint of some net neutrality advocates is that this regulatory authority is not powerful enough after the limitations placed by the courts (it can prohibit "slow lanes", but cannot prohibit "fast lanes", only require that they be offered on a commercially reasonable, non-discriminatory basis). They want the FCC to switch to a different, more powerful, regulatory authority. If people submit comments to the FCC modeled after what John Oliver said, saying that the internet is fine as is, and the FCC should not make changes, they are in effect saying that they do NOT want net neutrality.

smutticus 12y ago
We should all basically just get behind what the EFF is saying here. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/fcc-and-net-neutrality-way-forward https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/fcc-and-net-neutrality... It's tough for people like John Oliver to communicate to his audience anything other than, "Don't break the Internet." Indeed, part of the problem with net neutrality is confusion regarding what we mean by it. It's tough, but most people who are pro 'net neutrality' generally have the same idea of what they mean. They just might not understand how the Internet works, or how that relates to the FCC.

djyaz1200 12y ago

Google is responding by building it's own physical network infrastructure nationwide. Google Fiber is a big middle finger to the telecom industry. If Google is good at anything it's protecting Google.

ejain 12y ago

To be fair, Goggle's motto isn't "be a force for the good", but "don't be evil".

justin66 12y ago
When you're that big, inaction is a force in and of itself.
- diminoten 12y ago
  It's not Google's responsibility to save the Internet.

trhway 12y ago

Google with its 60B cash - $500 per US household - can build its own internet. Given Apple's 140B, MS's 80B cash, etc... and the likes of China and Russia building their own "Internet continents" - the "Open Internet" is pretty much gone (tomorrow definitely). Instead we need to prepare to how to live and do business in that new environment or build a new one - crypto, Tor, mesh, satellites, etc...