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.<p>Compromise? That doesn't sound like the Google I know and love.<p>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.<p>I've been a Google fan boy for a long time but this week they lost my respect.
Principles which succumb to "political realities" or the "spirit of compromise" are no principles at all.<p>I'm still hugely disappointed but maybe it was naive to think a corporate entity could ever have true principles.
The Myth/Fact format was probably the wrong choice when many of the "Fact" sections contain information supportive of the "Myth", along with a few weasel words like "But given political realities", "However, in the spirit of compromise", etc.
For context:<p>> Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel<p><a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090129_interview_richard_whitt_google_telecom_media_counsel/" rel="nofollow">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090129_interview_richard_whi...</a><p>From Linked-in profile:<p><pre><code> President at NetsEdge Consulting, LLC (Sole Proprietorship)
VP of Federal Law and Policy at MCI
Senior Director for Global Public Policy at MCI
Director of Federal Law and Policy at MCI
Regulatory Counsel at IDB WorldCom
Associate Attorney at Sutherland, Asbill, and Brennan
Associate Attorney at Bishop, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds
</code></pre>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCI" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCI</a><p><pre><code> > MCI, Inc. is an American telecommunications subsidiary of Verizon Communications.</code></pre>
I've found that a pretty good rule of thumb for recognizing corporate BS is any time a campaign is called "Get The Facts" or something similar.<p>For example, look on the side of many boxes of junk cereal and you'll find a "Get The Facts" box touting the benefits of some miniscule quantity of vitamin contained in the cereal. Or when Microsoft launched a "Get The Facts" campaign in 2004 to try to steer users away from Linux.<p>I also find the phrase to be highly condescending.
"So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability – so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet."<p>Can somebody explain? Does this mean verizon would be able to sell special secure service to say, bank of america for its public site? What is the meaning of "separate from public internet"? doesn't this eventually mean that by paying verizon, BOA would be able to offer secure service than a bank who did not buy the "special service" from verizon? Am I missing something here?<p>If this is the case, what is to stop verizon from going a step ahead from offering "secure" to "faster" service to those who care to pay. then where goes net-neutrality.?
MYTH: Google has “sold out” on network neutrality.<p>FACT: Sure, we were all ready to pay $4.6 billion to keep the 700MHz band open a couple years ago. Hey, had you <i>seen</i> that iPhone thing? It was killing us. But that was yesterday. Just the other day, our BFF Verizon told us that Android was selling 300,000 units a day. <i>300,000 a day</i>. We were, like, "Net neutrality who?"
What I got from the post was how arrogant Google has become. Anyone notice that they dress up their opinions with wasted "MYTHS" & "FACTS"? And while the myth statements & facts maybe be true, they don't actually dis-prove the point of many originating myths, which Is why they follow each Myth/Fact with an opinion.<p>I don't mind Google having an opinion worth fighting for, but Google is a private company trying to push their private deals on government acting like they are doing everyone a favor.<p>I personally don't appreciate what they're doing and I'm noticing a trend where I'm beginning to like Google as much as I like Microsoft, and I hate Microsoft.
The most important point here is their defense of the wireless exemption.<p>Agree with it or not (I'm on the fence, and most people seem to disagree with it), it is deliberately temporary, and most importantly, subject to annual review and debate. So if you don't like it, please disagree, but do note that this is not meant to be a permanent provision.
Reminds of what pg said on Be good (<a href="http://paulgraham.com/good.html" rel="nofollow">http://paulgraham.com/good.html</a>):<p><i>Anyone can adopt "Don't be evil." The catch is that people will hold you to it.</i>
Dear Google,<p>I'm new to this. Care to explain what is this "public Internet" you talk about? I always thought there was only the Internet.<p>Thank You
Personally, I am for total net neutrality (wireless, etc.).<p>But speaking pure strategy, you'd think after Microsoft antitrust, USL/BSDi, etc., that large tech companies would learn to avoid going anywhere near debates about the law.<p>Legal debates are really important. In fact they are so important that they have a habit of leaving some of the largest centers of innovation in their wake. And each legal fight is different, for sure. But I don't think people exactly appreciate the opportunity cost associated with anything but the most clear positions on social/legal issues.<p>Don't get me wrong: debate is important. Critical to our society and all that. But as a company, you can't ever afford to be kinda in a stance about something. Facebook, to their credit, come off as usually very decisive about their policy decision making (maybe it's that hacker, trial and error culture?), if wrong at first.<p>I think Google's approach in China was pretty good. They were almost decisive for about five minutes. But then it got mired in this or that proxy -- and meanwhile you create this doubt in people's minds. The doubters gain traction -- and it even infects your own focus, etc. -- all the way down the org chart.<p>And I don't know that I'm advocating disruptive, brash decision making. But you have to think of this whole technology and world environment as in a very fast-moving frame of reference. In which, anything that positions you in doubt and uncertainty grows with time until you clarify things. It's a fast moving set of integrals, running up area underneath at any given moment. Honesty is probably always the most important. But messed up frames of reference that <i>seem</i> like the right thing but actually tie up entire reserves of focus, etc., will quickly waylay even the best by the side of the road.
I'm having trouble blaming them for the out-of-band services exemption. That seems unavoidable to me as the alternative leads to absurdities.<p>How would you technically define "neutrality" between a digital TV service and its piggybacked internet connection? If the provider wants to allocate enough bandwidth for a specific quality video signal and use the rest for IP, is something wrong with that? Are they supposed to throttle the video signal to match the quality of Youtube?<p>Even if they use IP for the TV service, it's still going to blow away any competing service that has to traverse the public internet and I don't see any sensible way the ISP could avoid that. And it gets really weird when you look at internet over analog services, like DSL and cable modems.<p>The best you can do is force them to treat all IP traffic equally. Then they can't cripple Youtube or Skype without crippling the entire internet. The next least heavy-handed thing I can think of doing is simply forcing all digital services onto the public internet, which would be neat but a bit too ambitious.
I know regular HNers are always saying how the community is becoming more like reddit and digg, and I knew there was an inevitable gradual change... but, threads like these really start to scare me.<p>There is very little factual, rational discourse in this 100+ point and 100+ comment thread. There are lots of passionate opinions and that's great but the naivety, over-confidence, strict idealism is, I think, really counter to the hacker culture/philosophy that makes this community appeal to me.<p>I'm not here crying the sky is falling; I just want those passionate arm-chair politicians to take a step back and reconsider the virtue of practicality and getting the best out of a bad/difficult situation.
<p><pre><code> "MYTH: This proposal represents a step backwards
for the open Internet.
FACT: If adopted, this proposal would for the first time
give the FCC the ability to preserve the open Internet
through enforceable rules on broadband providers. At the
same time, the FCC would be prohibited from imposing
regulations on the Internet itself."
</code></pre>
The last sentence seems to be exactly what net neutrality advocates have been endorsing; a regulated internet that prevents ISP's from favoring certain content providers. Why would Google tout this as a benefit? Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but this sounds like a reversal. Please clarify what they mean if I'm wrong.
Transparency in how providers muck about with wireless connections is nice and all, but honestly, what real use is transparency unless you can act on it. Between the wireless industry's pervasive contracts, and the low number of provider options, the average user has little recourse when they get poor treatment.<p>Google is pretty much telling us that it is too much to ask that we have choice, transparency and neutrality on our public airwaves, a common good. I do not agree.
Read the article and when at the very beginning I saw it was written by a lawyer I had a bad feeling about what the rest of it would be like. And I was right.
Google and other folks mention "political reality" as the reason for compromise. Folks, that just means we dont want to work hard at it, or make waves. If this country is truly democratic, then we, the people, have the power. We have the power to make not only Verizon and Google kneel to uus, but the FCC and the knuckleheads in DC.
On a quick read this sounds more like they're throwing the word "facts" around pretty loosely. More like re-mything. "in the spirit of compromise" is the key phrase. The thing about de-regulation is that companies don't get stricter with themselves. The initial proposal is as tight as it usually gets.