Google and Verizon’s joint statement on net neutrality and the internet (which apparently consists of three separate internets) wasn’t particularly well-received. Google has gone into damage-control mode, defending the policy proposal in a sort of get-the-facts-like weblog post.
The worries that arose from the Google/Verizon joint policy proposal were quit clear and elaborated at large. Google decided to counter each and every one of them, and in all honesty, they make a rather compelling case – but a few key issues remain.
The loudest complaint has been that Google sold out on network neutrality. The company has been quite active and vocal about the whole thing, and indeed, Google used to advocate for network neutrality for wireless networks as well, while the current proposal exempts them from net neutrality.
“At this time there are no enforceable protections – at the Federal Communications Commission or anywhere else – against even the worst forms of carrier discrimination against Internet traffic,” Google argues, “With that in mind, we decided to partner with a major broadband provider on the best policy solution we could devise together. We’re not saying this solution is perfect, but we believe that a proposal that locks in key enforceable protections for consumers is preferable to no protection at all.”
In other words – net neutrality on just wired networks is better than no net neutrality at all – wired or no. This is indeed true, but it still feels like a cop-out, clearly inspired by the need to keep Verizon happy. Google admits that it used to advocate net neutrality for wireless as well, but explains that a few arguments persuaded them to compromise.
“First, the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from,” Google explains, “Second, because wireless networks employ airwaves, rather than wires, and share constrained capacity among many users, these carriers need to manage their networks more actively. Third, network and device openness is now beginning to take off as a significant business model in this space.”
Another major concern was the part about additional services providers could offer atop the regular internet, which lead to people arguing that providers (of internet and of content) would lock away the good stuff in services exempt from the net neutrality and transparency rules. Google argues that the proposal includes enough safeguards to prevent this from happening, but I have my doubts. The definition of such a distinct service is far too vague for my comfort.
Many – myself included – see this proposal as a sort-of business deal between Google and Verizon. This double Baby Bell is pushing Android hard with several very successful phones, playing a major role in Android’s stunning success in the marketplace. As such, I get the feeling this is Google’s way of saying “thank you”, while also having something to hold over Verizon’s head in the future (coincidentally, this is why I don’t think we’ll ever see a Verizon iPhone).
Google obviously denies this, saying it’s a policy proposal, not a business deal. “Of course, Google has a close business relationship with Verizon, but ultimately this proposal has nothing to do with Android,” Google writes, “Folks certainly should not be surprised by the announcement of this proposal, given our prior public policy work with Verizon on network neutrality, going back to our October 2009 blog post, our January 2010 joint FCC filing, and our April 2010 op-ed.”
All-in-all, this is a though nut to crack, mostly because the FCC is anything but an organisation I’d place any trust in. Let’s face it, they throw major hissy fits over the smallest of things, like nipples and cuss words – things that wouldn’t even cause yawns in less puritan societies like my own. What exactly is “unlawful content”? Is it unlawful to show a breast? To cuss?
Would you want such an organisation to govern your internet? Remember, this is how you get your porn.
“Second, because wireless networks employ airwaves, rather than wires, and share constrained capacity among many users, these carriers need to manage their networks more actively.”
It is true that they have less bandwidth, but they also typically exercise orders of magnitude more control.
While wired ISP’s may engage in traffic shaping, you don’t see them saying “sorry, but you are not allowed to install that”
This does seem like kind of a “it’s only OK when we do it” thing.
that is all.
The airwaves are a public asset. No corporation should be able to dictate how those assets are used. They purchased the right to provide services as a utility would and should not be permitted to be the arbiter of the distribution of that service to the benefit/detriment of their partners.
Image if the water company cut deals so some businesses had enough to operate while other – smaller – companies did not. It would be politically impossible. Yet with wireless bandwidth Google thinks we should be cool with it.
I accept the argument that bandwidth ‘over the air’ is limited and so – like any other limited resource – higher consumption should carry a higher cost but there should be no ‘backroom deals’ between anyone.
]{
This behavior is new, usually Google steps back and says sorry or “we screw it up”, but this time it defends its proposal, wireless control is really important for them. no doubt.
Yeah, only one of their argument is true, aka the bandwidth is limited wirelessly. Otherwise that’s a bit evil, surprising.
meh, I have always viewed net neutrality as well intentioned but poorly executed and consequently more harmful than useful anyway.
Now the shoe is on the other foot and Google is all like, “um yeah, about this net neutrality thing..”
great
Edited 2010-08-13 08:16 UTC
“Second, because wireless networks employ airwaves, rather than wires, and share constrained capacity among many users, these carriers need to manage their networks more actively”
So, to repeat:
What!? And the broadband cable loop that my home and neighboring homes are on isn’t a shared capacity? Would someone tell my broadband provider to stop sending those “you are using XX% more than other customers in your area and affecting there services” letters then?
Sure, there may be more mobile phones hitting the local cell towers but what are the chances those devices are running torrent downloads like the neighbor’s kids are on our local wire loop?
The Cable Company can drop more wire down your street, but if you throw another Cell Tower up it still can only access 1 EM band.
Not entirely true. Carriers own multiple bands of spectrum and they often can deploy more bandwidth to a tower as long as it isn’t the same frequency used by a nearby tower.
Here is a simplified diagram:
(Frequencies 1 and 3) – (frequencies 2 and 4) – (Frequencies 1 and 3)
They can reuse the spectrum again a couple of cells over with minimal interference depending on the specific spectrum in use but like anything there is a cost/benefit return to be considered.
Higher frequencies attenuate at a greater rate and allow for smaller, more densely populated cell sizes.
They are still limited to that area for each band. Once they deploy all of their non-overlapping bands on a tower, they can no longer increase bandwidth. If an apartment complex were to go up next to the tower when they were near capacity from residents at the neighboring complex there is no way to increase the bandwidth in the area, since spectrum is finite. For the cable company, they just lay more lines leading to the new building.
If it’s that easy for wired providers, why are my speeds no where near what europe and asia have for internet broadband?
because your provider sucks? Jut because they have no motivation to improve speeds (no competition?) doesn’t mean it isn’t doable.
I can’t disagree there. That was also part of my point. Not just my provider but pretty much all the North American providers are sitting on old infrastructure and transfer speeds/limits dismal compared to Europe and Asia.
The post I responded to made it sound like the wired providers can just pop out and swap few boxes; tadaaa.. triple bandwidth for everyone. But wireless, oh that’s a finite resource that can’t possibly be improved to support smartphones. From the consumers side, wired is just as much a shared finite resource unless anyone knows a provider allowing consumers to add there own taps into the infrastructure.
Google has become more and more evil ever since it’s IPO. It’s money hungry share holders only care about making more money. Human health, liberty, or happiness are all expendable according to these rules. This is the inherent evil of corporate structure.
Google is Evil. It’s a corporation, beholden to stock holders who do not care about any moral or ethical concern. They just want money, and they will outright kill us all to get it.
Net neutrality CLEARLY is not a concern. The more neutral the net, the more competitors, the less control and money for Google. Hence, nix net neutrality.
We need massive reform and complete abolishment of corporations. Small family operated businesses should replace all the corporations. This would ensure human liberty, health, happiness, and a reasonable wage for all citizens.
On a personal note: FUCK YOU GOOGLE!!!!! AND TRIPLE FUCK YOU VERIZON!!!!!
sells clothing,footwear,handbags,Sunglasses
Online Store,Get Name Brand Fashion From 12USD Now!
Our Website: http://www.famalegoods.com
Our main product list is as follows:
1. Fashion Sports shoes: $35
Shox,Dunk,Jordan, Air max, Air force,Adidas, Puma,Prada,D&G, Chanel,Gucci, Lacoste,
LouisVuiton,Evisu,Timberland,ugg,boots,Burberry,Dior,Greedy
2. Fashion T-Shirt $14 & Jeans $30 & Jacket $37:
AF,BBC,Evsiu,Juicy,GGG,Burberry,ED-Hardy,Chanel,G-Star,Red monkey,Christian
Audigie,sinful,lacoste,POLO,Armani,Smet,Baby,Levis,Justcavalli,Versace ,True Religion,Artful Dodger,Rock,Coogi,Crown
Holder,RMC,etc.
3.Fashion Handbags:$$35
LV , Prada , Chanel ,D&G, Fendi , EDhardy, Burberry , MIUMIU ,Gucci ,Chloe , Juicy and Chole,Burse,etc.
4. brand watches(rolex,Longines…)$50
belt(d&g, gucci, prada, chanel, burberry…. )$14,
hats $12
sunglasses $12 (Police,rayban,gucci,prada,LV)
Deliever: Nearly 5 days arrive your home or your friends’ adress by EMS,DHL,UPs !!!!!!!!!!!
Looking forward your visit.asdsf @#$R$$
gtr76458