

Google responds: Facts about our network neutrality policy proposal - woodrow
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/facts-about-our-network-neutrality.html

======
joshfraser
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.

Compromise? That doesn't sound like the Google I know and love.

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.

I've been a Google fan boy for a long time but this week they lost my respect.

~~~
wmf
_Why didn't they just both submit their own proposals and let the FCC make up
their own mind on the various issues?_

I suspect that the FCC would see no common ground between the proposals and do
nothing. In fact, that was pretty much the state of play until last week.

~~~
nostromo
I think it would be better for the FCC to keep doing nothing at this point.

Right now the ISPs are afraid that if they create a tiered network that there
would be outrage and the government would move in and regulate their industry.

However, now Google has given them coverage by making it appear to the FCC and
congress that there is a compromise that can be made into law. I'd actually
prefer that there be only light regulation, but a healthy paranoia from the
telcos that they would be strong armed by the government (and corporations
like Google) if they start to violate net neutrality.

It reminds me of a debate in US history about the Bill of Rights. Some argued
that by listing your rights, you are inherently implying that there are no
rights other than those listed. The idea is that by not enumerating rights you
expand them.

~~~
wmf
I think the current state of regulatory uncertainty cannot last. Eventually
Washington will get bored of the issue and — absent regulation — ISPs will go
back to their old tricks.

~~~
nostromo
Perhaps. But sometimes telling an industry not to fuck consumers or face
regulation keeps them better behaved than telling them exactly how they are
allowed to fuck consumers.

~~~
djcapelis
Which seems to exactly match up with the approach google proposed the
government take with regard to wireless...

------
dschobel
Principles which succumb to "political realities" or the "spirit of
compromise" are no principles at all.

I'm still hugely disappointed but maybe it was naive to think a corporate
entity could ever have true principles.

~~~
sprout
The "spirit of compromise" is the core principle of democracy. If you're
against compromise, you're against democracy.

~~~
dschobel
That is frightening logic and factually incorrect. History is full of examples
of minority abuse at the hands of the majority.

Here is a good starting point:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_democracy#Oppressi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_democracy#Oppression_by_the_majority)

~~~
sprout
I think most would agree that those are failed democracies. Just because
democracy does certain things in practice does not mean that those things are
in line with the core principles of democracy, of which compromise is one.

~~~
gloob
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman>

------
wooster
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.

~~~
mbreese
If you think political realities don't have an effect on what can be
accomplished with net neutrality, you're just being naive. I think this marks
the point in time where (publicly at least) Google has moved on from the
unfettered idealist stage to the more pragmatic realist stage. It might be a
sad shift, but it was an inevitable one.

~~~
dschobel
If being pragmatic entails giving up the fight (as google has done in the
wireless world), count me out.

~~~
nooneelse
Allowing a stall as part of a compromise is not the same as giving up.

~~~
dschobel
They ceded the wireless world to the control of the carriers so it wouldn't be
a stall so much as playing dead.

And a full reversal is certainly possible, it would imply a short-sightedness
which is hard to reconcile with Google's policy history which tells us that it
would take some major event (think the Chinese hacking incident) for them to
reverse themselves entirely.

There is simply no way this agreement was undertaken lightly or without
extensive analysis. Doubly so because it pisses off the technical elite (and
they surely knew it would) both inside and outside Google.

------
alecco
For context:

> Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel

[http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090129_interview_richard_whi...](http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090129_interview_richard_whitt_google_telecom_media_counsel/)

From Linked-in profile:

    
    
      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
    

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCI>

    
    
      > MCI, Inc. is an American telecommunications subsidiary of Verizon Communications.

------
cal5k
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.

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.

I also find the phrase to be highly condescending.

~~~
moultano
So you've decided that your reading of this is going to stop at rules of
thumb?

~~~
cal5k
I've addressed this already above.

------
prat
"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."

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?

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.?

~~~
sp332
If the special treatment that BoA pays for does not degrade my (or anyone
else's) internet performance, and does not degrade the speed or accessibility
of other bank websites, I don't mind. I think the "separate and apart" means
this goes further - I can't just type <https://www.bankofamerica.com/> and get
the special service.

~~~
prat
I understand.. so yes - we as users won't mind. but what if I were another
bank? The security upgrades that I would normally pay Infosys to do for me now
no longer give me a competitive advantage over BoA. I'd have to pay verizon in
addition to get the same "special service" to offer the same security (replace
with speed/features etc.) right?

~~~
nanairo
Yep, that's pretty much what it is. The words "upgrade" or "in addition" are
purely PR: what is the difference between slowing down website A but not B, or
increasing the bandwidth for website B but not A? I'd imagine that in the USA
you'll get faster broadband in the future: either the "normal" usage gets
redefined each time, or you could be stuck with "normal" being the situation
in 2010 for the next decade or more.

~~~
sorbus
When you increase bandwidth for A but not B because A is paying you more
money, you are behaving in the exact same way that the internet does: paying
for a faster connection leads to more bandwidth. When you slow down B but not
A because A is paying you more money, you are actively messing with packets,
holding back ones from B while pushing ones from A further up the queue.
Speeding up A is not the same thing as slowing down B.

~~~
nanairo
Eh??? Paying for a faster connection??? What are you trying to say? That if I
own a website then it's ok to be charged money by an ISP to get an extra chunk
of the last mile to the user???

~~~
sorbus
No. You're charged for the connection your server has to the wider internet.
The end-user is charged for their connection to the wider internet.

Note that I'm talking about the total bandwidth available, not the speed of
the connection to an end-user. The distinction is important: having more
bandwidth means that you can send data to more users without sacrificing
individual speed.

Peering arrangements between providers are the closest it should be possible
to get to paying for a larger chunk of the last mile: because the server they
are trying to talk to is fewer hops away, they will have lower pings, and
possibly more responsive page-loading. In a situation where the connection of
a network to the backbone is saturated, this appears to be the same as giving
the peered provider's packets priority, since that connection is not
saturated. This situation is somewhat distinct, however, being an issue of
incompetence or third-party malice (the connection is either too small for
normal usage or being attacked) instead of hardware designed to prioritize
packets by source (which would be malice or greed on the part of the
provider). This assumes a simple network topography, with a single connection
to non-peered network, but it may be expanded to explain situations involving
larger networks.

------
gamble
MYTH: Google has “sold out” on network neutrality.

FACT: Sure, we were all ready to pay $4.6 billion to keep the 700MHz band open
a couple years ago. Hey, had you _seen_ 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. _300,000 a day_. We were, like, "Net
neutrality who?"

~~~
spot
ACTUAL FACT: they got the neutrality concession on that spectrum and it will
apply to verizon's 4G network.

~~~
nanairo
How can you reconcile this view with the new Google where "wireless is already
very competitive so no need for regulations"?

How is that not giving in?

~~~
yoden
As they clearly state, they can't see enough reason to force regulation _yet_.
And with at least double the number of providers (far more if you count
resellers) compared to landlines (USA-centric view), they're right.

Now, you can still argue that despite competition mobile internet needs
regulation. But that's a much tougher argument to make.

~~~
nanairo
What? So a few years ago Google believes that wireless needs to be kept open,
makes a big bet and succeeds in ensuring as much.

Nowadays instead it does not require regulation because there's plenty of
competition.

What has changed in the last few years to make Google change their mind? Have
the number of wireless competitors gone up? From what I heard you (=Americans)
are ending up with 2 large wireless companies (AT&T and Verizon), and a couple
of little ones.

If anything competition has decreased. And yet Google feels regulation is not
necessary anymore.

------
whyme
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.

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.

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.

------
mikeryan
Is it me or does every "MYTH" seem to be proven true in the debunking?

------
icarus_drowning
The most important point here is their defense of the wireless exemption.

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.

~~~
steveklabnik
But one could still argue that a deliberate, temporary solution still does no
good. Why not just take care of everything right now, while we've already got
legislators talking about it? If we have to bring up this whole discussion
again a second time to get wireless done, I fear it will never be so.

~~~
chc
Why not just take care of everything right now? For the same reason you don't
get married on the first date. Wireless Internet is a very young and largely
unknown market, we don't know what form it will eventually settle into and any
laws we draft now are likely to be hopelessly naive in the much same way that
software design patents are.

~~~
dieterrams
Wireless internet is already a total joke, where carriers charge you extra for
tethering just to use the bandwidth you already paid for, and give you the
runaround when you try to contest charges. The carriers will manipulate this
market to squeeze every possible dime they can get from it.

And recall just how badly mobile phones stagnated before the iPhone and
Android. That's carrier control at work.

The sooner these guys become reduced to dumb pipes, the better.

~~~
ergo98
>Wireless internet is already a total joke, where carriers charge you extra
for tethering just to use the bandwidth you already paid for

Bullshit. Don't dumb down the argument just because it serves your personal
desires.

Tethering completely upsets the usage models. Their choice is then either to
increase prices for _everyone_ , or, if it remains relatively rare, increase
the prices for the few. They chose the latter.

~~~
ericd
Given that they claimed "Unlimited" bandwidth, I would say that you already
paid for that slice of bandwidth you're using for your computer.

That said, it would be nice to have explicit limits at different price points,
regardless of how you're using it. They don't seem to be doing this, though,
even on AT&T where you're specifically paying for a given amount of bandwidth.
You have to pay again.

So, parent was hyperbolic, but not bullshit.

~~~
ergo98
>Given that they claimed "Unlimited" bandwidth

I haven't signed up for a plan that claimed unlimited since the 90s. Maybe
organizations around here are just more rational?

However I do have a 5GB plan on my smartphone. In an average month I use
around 500MB, because there's only so much you can do on a smartphone, and
they know it, but they monitor the curve and provide enough excess that I know
that if I really needed it for a period, I could use it. They also sell data
sticks for PCs, and they charge much more for lower caps, because of course
they know that you'll use it.

My gym membership costs something like $19 a month. Technically I could go
every open minute of every day, hogging equipment and space. So could everyone
else. Of course then the gym could host a membership count in the dozens
instead of in the many hundreds, and my real cost would be significantly
higher.

~~~
steveklabnik
For what It's worth, both my FIOS and my data plan from T-Mobile claim to be
unlimited. I have yet to read the fine print.

------
DanielRibeiro
Reminds of what pg said on Be good (<http://paulgraham.com/good.html>):

 _Anyone can adopt "Don't be evil." The catch is that people will hold you to
it._

------
chintan
Dear Google,

I'm new to this. Care to explain what is this "public Internet" you talk
about? I always thought there was only the Internet.

Thank You

~~~
sorbus
Sites only accessible to people on a network which is linked to the internet
are not part of the public internet (for instance, my router's configuration
page is most definitely not part of the public internet). A proprietary
browser-based application running inside of a corporate network would not be
part of the public internet, unless it is specifically designed to be
accessible to anyone with a browser. The basic rule of thumb I would use is
that something is on the public internet if anyone with a browser in a country
with no filtering of the internet can reach it, given the proper passwords and
so forth (and without using a VPN or similar tunneling to make it appear that
they're elsewhere).

~~~
chintan
You are confusing between internet and the Internet.

Google said public Internet.

~~~
sorbus
Would you mind explaining the difference between them, other than that one is
capitalized while the other is not, then? Focus on how I would be inaccurate
if I replaced every instance of "internet" with "Internet" in my previous
post.

------
tmsh
Personally, I am for total net neutrality (wireless, etc.).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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
_seem_ 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.

------
extension
I'm having trouble blaming them for the out-of-band services exemption. That
seems unavoidable to me as the alternative leads to absurdities.

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?

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.

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.

------
thebigshane
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.

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.

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.

------
joelhaus

      "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."
    

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.

~~~
jemfinch
What even net neutrality advocates want to avoid is the FCC becoming the
"objectionable content police." The FCC should be able to enforce net
neutrality, but _not_ create _new_ regulations regarding content.

The EFF discussed this in their recent post on the matter.

~~~
joelhaus
Thanks, hadn't read the EFF discussion, but I was not aware that content
censorship was even at issue in the net neutrality debate.

Given that this is an official statement from a major stakeholder and given
the technical/legal/societal implications, I would have hoped for more precise
language.

I can still see this sentence being used to justify tying the hands of the FCC
when new issues arise due to technological advancements; the whole Comcast
judgment brought into question the scope of their regulatory authority & this
proposal seems to significantly restrict what could potentially be required to
ensure NN. IMO the issue is too important for this type of ambiguity and
proposed restrictions on the FCC should be fully aired & vetted.

------
navyrain
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.

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.

------
mkramlich
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.

------
malabar
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.

------
da5e
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.

~~~
moultano
This isn't de-regulation. There is no regulation right now.

~~~
gamble
There was also a strong political movement to create fair regulation, until
Google threw it under the bus.

~~~
moultano
On the contrary, it seems that the movement is alive and well, and currently
throwing Google under the bus.

------
47
Google response: It is kinda Neutral

------
orblivion
As soon as you start using "MYTH" in regards to opinions or analysis, you've
lost me.

------
showngo
This is such bull shit.

------
inodeman
I don't buy it.

~~~
akeefer
Which part don't you buy? Do you think they're lying about their motivations,
or do you not agree with their justifications?

