Google - Verizon Deal

[Harlowe]

What do guys think about the recent developments? I'm in the camp that all packets should be treated equally and am a big ole fan of Net Neutrality. First saying there wasn't a deal then announcing details of the deal the next day makes it all the more fishy to me. There seems to be some mighty HUGE loop holes in the whole thing, especially where wireless and "differentiated" services are concerned.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

I think its kind of a farce. There's simply nothing neutral about Big Corporations wanting to reform how the net works. The more I investigated it 2 years ago it seemed there were shady dealings and absurd ideas on both sides of the aisle.

That being said, things could have changed since then (though I kind of doubt it).

[Embar Angylwrath]

What do guys think about the recent developments? I'm in the camp that all packets should be treated equally and am a big ole fan of Net Neutrality. First saying there wasn't a deal then announcing details of the deal the next day makes it all the more fishy to me. There seems to be some mighty HUGE loop holes in the whole thing, especially where wireless and "differentiated" services are concerned.

When any organization espouses equality for all, but some are more equal than others... that should raise hackles om your neck. The Verizon-Google solution smacks of net control for competitors, not of net neutrailty. They offered a position that expressly exempts wireless services from net neutrality. And guess where most data transfers are headed? Through wireless services.

You have to ask yourself... why would Google-Verizon want to exempt wireless services from net neutrality?

[Freecare Spiritwise]

DSL Reports put it best:

As we discussed in great detail yesterday, Google and Verizon have unveiled what they are claiming is a consumer-friendly framework for network neutrality rules. Except Google and Verizon's "solution" is a hollow, self-regulatory gesture that would result in a gutted FCC, giant loopholes, and largely-meaningless rules that wouldn't extend to wireless. The two companies today followed up yesterday's PR presentation with a joint sales pitch via the Washington Post, in which they claim only two principles guided their secret negotiations:

In developing this framework, we were guided by two principles: our commitment to an open Internet, and the need for continued investment in broadband infrastructure, which is critical to U.S. global competitiveness.

Again, you'll note that "protecting our multi-billion-dollar Android partnership" is nowhere in there, and as we noted yesterday -- there's an immense arrogance in assuming the public can't do the simple math on why neither company wants neutrality applied to wireless networks. Yesterday the companies vaguely argued wireless service has "unique technical and operational characteristics." Today their vague justification has slightly more heft:

With respect to wireless broadband networks, we agree that the rapidly evolving wireless Internet is a different kind of network, with unique technical and operational challenges, demanding different consideration than wireline networks. Notably, the 4G network that Verizon also is building on the recently auctioned 700 megahertz spectrum is already subject to open Internet rules.

Except as we mentioned back in 2007, those conditions the companies refer to are so filled with loopholes, they too are all but meaningless. And therein lies the rub. If you're willing to allow Verizon to dictate policy, your final policy is going to be riddled with massive loopholes -- it's what Verizon lawyers do. Any expectation that policy proposals authored by Verizon will have any meaningful tough consumer protections is immensely naive, and ignores decades of Verizon (and NYNEX, and Bell Atlantic) political and lobbying tactics.

[Partha]

Hmm, companies go for screwing customers and obtaining virtual monopolies over communications. What's new about that?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Hmm, companies go for screwing customers and obtaining virtual monopolies over communications. What's new about that?

Not much new at all.

Are you protesting the monopoly by refusing to participate in it?

Didn't think so...hypocrite.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

Google now doing damage control!

Google continues to work on damage control over their deal arrangement with Verizon. The company took to their policy blog today to insist the company didn't "sell out" on network neutrality, but instead is just working "tirelessly for an open Internet" (in ways an ocean of critics just can't see). The post, by Google lawyer Richard Whitt, essentially argues that due to "political realities," their solution is better than the neutrality protections currently on the books (namely, none):the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from.

But given political realities, this particular issue has been intractable in Washington for several years now. . .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.

Of course there's a third option: a neutrality foundation built by tough regulators based on the input of all parties (including small businesses and consumers), and not just two of the wealthiest corporations in the debate. Whitt glosses over the fact their proposal creates a toothless FCC that will be subjugated by industry-created self-regulatory showmanship, insists the wireless sector (dominated by AT&T and Verizon) is actually very competitive, and then proclaims their joint proposal has nothing to do with Android:...such competition, while beneficial to consumers, appropriately should be seen as relatively shallow in nature.

This is 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. 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.

You'll note Whitt conveniently doesn't want to go back to 2007, where you'd actually start to notice the stark contrast between a company focused on innovation, and one focused on turf protection. Take a look at documents written by Whitt in 2007, back when Google was trying to break into the wireless ad business. You'll see a remarkably different tone, with Whitt not even approving of wireless or wireline QoS prioritization, while repeatedly noting a lack of competition in the wireless sector and the myriad of possible threats entrenched, uncompetitive carriers pose consumers:

...Wireless providers block many common Internet applications and services outright, frequently do not allow network attachment of any device but their own, and reserve the right to terminate service arbitrarily for using other services that do not conform to a short and vaguely-defined list...Where the broadband incumbents do compete against each other in the market, they do so primarily based on qualities such as price and speed. Within the larger context of market dynamics, such competition, while beneficial to consumers, appropriately should be seen as relatively shallow in nature.

Aside from some pressure from upstart prepaid carriers (whose subscriber totals are still relatively laughable), the wireless sector hasn't magically become so competitive and open that Whitt's fears in 2007 no longer apply. Clearwire's partial network build adds a little competition, but recall Verizon removed the semi-disruptive Alltel from the market. The wireless sector remains a market absolutely dominated by AT&T and Verizon, who are still consistently crippling handsets and blocking applications they don't like in the hopes of retaining control.


So what changed? Google did. In 2007, Android wasn't a major mobile OS, and Google didn't have multi-billion-dollar wireless advertising relationships with Verizon and AT&T. You'll also recall that Google had hopes of bypassing the carrier retail experience completely -- hopes that flamed out rather spectacularly with the death of the Nexus One and their online phone store. The policy shift is clear and indisputable, as is the motivation: Google doesn't want consumer protections (be they privacy, or network neutrality) to impact wireless ad revenues.

Even industry "consultant" Scott Cleland, paid by AT&T and Verizon in the past to attack Google (he apparently didn't get the memo that Verizon and Google are now BFFs), acknowledges Google's new perspective is about mobile ads. The continued pretense that Google's shift has nothing to do with protecting their new multi-billion-dollar wireless ad empire from tough consumer protections is aggressively insulting. While we wait for Google to admit the obvious, the Richard Whitt from 2010 might benefit from a conversation with the Richard Whitt from 2007.

[Partha]

Hmm, companies go for screwing customers and obtaining virtual monopolies over communications. What's new about that?

Not much new at all.

Are you protesting the monopoly by refusing to participate in it?

Didn't think so...hypocrite.

Evidently you never heard me talk about my stable of pigeons.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Is that in front of or behind your shack in the woods?

[Freecare Spiritwise]

Is that in front of or behind your shack in the woods?

You didn't read the manifesto?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Hmm, companies go for screwing customers and obtaining virtual monopolies over communications. What's new about that?

Not much new at all.

Are you protesting the monopoly by refusing to participate in it?

Didn't think so...hypocrite.

Evidently you never heard me talk about my stable of pigeons.

Better than collecting cats I suppose. You can learn more about pigeons here...

www.google.com

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Is that in front of or behind your shack in the woods?

You didn't read the manifesto?

Communist or Weather Underground?

[Partha]

No, no, no, Embar. First you collect the cats, then THEY collect the pigeons. Outsourcing!

Fall: As far as manifestos go, I like the Declaration of Independance.

[Ddrak]

I've never really figured out the point of Net Neutrality. Why shouldn't a company be allowed to push some packets faster than others, or even block some packets if it feels like it? It's only an issue if the company has a monopoly position and then antitrust statutes kick in anyway. As long as consumers can decide that their ISP is shit and move somewhere else then the whole argument is worthless.

Of course, I'm open for being convinced otherwise.

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Fall: As far as manifestos go, I like the Declaration of Independance.

That's honestly a shocker, given your view point on things.

Do you feel the Constitution is a document of "negative liberties"?

[Partha]

Not really.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The history of mankind shows that the greatest success comes from organized groups of humans, not 'lone wolves' with no check upon their behavior. Thus democracy > monarchy/tyranny, and mercantilism > feudalism. That's why I can't embrace a lot of the nuttiness coming from the right wing - their policies have the practical effect of putting more and more of the wealth and power of the country in the hands of fewer and fewer people.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Ummmm.. that's the intro to the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Fucking public schools...

[Embar Angylwrath]

Not really.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The history of mankind shows that the greatest success comes from organized groups of humans, not 'lone wolves' with no check upon their behavior. Thus democracy > monarchy/tyranny, and mercantilism > feudalism. That's why I can't embrace a lot of the nuttiness coming from the right wing - their policies have the practical effect of putting more and more of the wealth and power of the country in the hands of fewer and fewer people.

And ummm....

Democracy has been around (in our current understanding) for less than 250 years. Hstorically, there have been much more stable forms of government, spanning multiple decades.

[Partha]

Ummmm.. that's the intro to the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Fucking public schools...

I was talking about the Declaration and completely missed that Fall decided to switch over to a nonsensical question about the Constitution. But my answer still stands - the Constitution is in no way a declaration of 'negative liberties', because that's a nonsense term.

And stable does not equal good. North Korea's government has been stable for 60 years. You call it good?

How about Chinese dynasties? Those were good, right?

Quality > length. Do you buy that penis enhancement stuff, too?

[Fallakin Kuvari]

1) You should pay more attention when you're replying. Seriously, how do you miss that. Constitution is very noticeably different than 'Declaration of Independence'.

2) You do realize we have a Democratic Republic, right?

3) Do you believe that "spreading around the wealth" is better than allowing people to create their own wealth?

4) You may want to inform Obama that "negative liberties" is a nonsense term.

5) What would you define as "Quality"?