
Chill The F*% out over the Google/Verizon Proposal - apgwoz
http://www.seanoc.com/blog/2010/8/17/chill-the-f-out-over-the-googleverizon-proposal.html
======
gamble
Google fans:

You know how when Apple does something unsavory to further its own business
interests, and Apple fans spin the most elaborate arguments to show how Apple
doing what's best for Apple is actually in everyone's interest? This is your
chance to be different.

~~~
invisible
What about when people spin a story out-of-control and sensationalizes to the
extreme? Or that's not an option...? People aren't even reporting on FACTS,
they're making up shit to say Google doesn't support net neutrality and wants
the net to be ruled by Google alone. That is total sensationalism and I cannot
believe you are resorting to: "Oh, you guys are fans that cannot think because
you don't ridicule Google."

~~~
gamble
The only _fact_ here is that Google very quickly switched from a whole-hearted
support of net neutrality to, at best, a compromised position endorsed by
Verizon, a company with a long history of outright opposition to net
neutrality and one that has significant leverage over Google thanks to Droid
sales. Their change of heart occurred very shortly after Android began to be
perceived as a success and after rumors of a Verizon iPhone.

Fundamentally, this is an issue of trust. The deal Google is proposing creates
significant wiggle room for the landline carriers, and asks us to trust that
the issue will be revisited for wireless carriers somewhere down the road,
even though an entrenched discriminatory regime will be much more difficult to
dislodge if it becomes a reality on the ground. There is a fairly strong net
neutrality movement today, even without Google, an apparently sympathetic FCC,
and a Democratic Congress capable of passing a net neutrality bill. There will
not be a better opportunity to legislate net neutrality for _years_ , given
the likely results of the upcoming midterms. Google is asking us to trust them
and wait, when waiting will almost certainly put the enemies of net neutrality
into a stronger position.

Personally, I don't see a lot of reason to trust Google on this issue. They
are like a lifelong Republican who suddenly discovered the attraction of left-
wing politics after losing his primary and joining the Democrats.

~~~
zarfle
What's the sympathetic FCC and the Democratic Congress accomplished towards
Net Neutrality lately?

"Congress rebukes FCC on Net neutrality rules"
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20005834-38.html>

"In theory, most Democrats favor Net neutrality. But theory doesn't always
mesh with political practice. Rank-and-file Dems are clamoring for Net
neutrality about as much as Bush-era Republicans were clamoring for limited
government: it's a valuable talking point, but of course there's no need to do
anything hasty. (Besides, even in this anti-incumbent year, how many single-
issue Net neutrality voters are there?) The last time there was a major
rewrite of telecommunications laws, it took something like five years for
Congress' internal mechanisms to spit out the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
A push for national cable franchising legislation went on for years but died
without a vote."

------
sbierwagen
I hate self-censoring like this.

Either use fuck, or don't. If you don't want to use the word fuck, then use
another word. It's easy to be equally harsh. "Chill the hell out about the
Google/Verizon proposal." "Freaking out about the Google/Verizon proposal?
You're a retard."

The point of censoring is that it's _externally imposed._ Swear filters on
poorly designed multiplayer video games. Internet forums. When you self-
censor, you announce that you spend so much time in such places that it has
irrevocably altered your writing.

------
invisible
It is sad that most people jump on the bandwagon without really grasping what
Google is trying to accomplish. I think the author frames it pretty nicely
towards the end with, basically, if we don't play the game we won't get to
make the rules. Google is trying to play the game - it has no incentive to NOT
have neutrality on the Internet. Most of Google's best products have been
start ups that they bought (and a lack of some neutrality on the Internet
would put a damper on that).

Instead, we get cries of Google running afoul and that (somehow) every
intellectual person at Google is now "evil" and bent on world domination.

~~~
waterlesscloud
This is called "being co-opted by the system". It's not evil in itself, but
you no longer get to pretend to be idealistic once you've done it.

~~~
invisible
I do not think that being realistic necessarily means being bad. It is
unrealistic to expect everyone to get along and the world to be great without
some abiding laws that those involved agree upon. The fact that things have
been luckily good so far is really not the whole story. These carriers are
itching to reduce network load, and without any rules they could begin making
decisions to lower costs without directly harming customers. This could be
very toxic for what the Internet stands for, and while it's unthinkable today
it is possible in the future.

------
grandalf
Bottom line is that Google's advocacy of net neutrality was an attempt to
innovate via legislation... by making a major competitive force illegal.

There are strong arguments both for and against net neutrality, and Google did
itself a disservice by trying to rally people behind the idea that net
neutrality is the "good" option and anything else is "evil". That sort of
simple binary good/bad is reminiscent of George W. Bush's approach to selling
people on his war strategy.

The fact is, it doesn't matter whether we have laws enforcing net
neutrality... for most things a neutral net is what consumers expect and
demand. For the marginal things where consumers don't care (possibly including
internet search) then consumers still win.

------
metamemetics
This pretty much all started because of a single New York Times article.
Everywhere reported that Google was requiring Verizon to abide by net
neutrality except the NYT which said it was destroying net-neutrality (pretty
hard to do when it never existed).

The fact that everyone on the internet reads the NYT and Gawker (and Gawker
just reports on NYT reports) lead to some sort of vicious rabble-rousing
feedback cycle. The power of the media.

------
cschep
Just spell out fuck, you're making us all think it.

(thank you Louis c.k.)

~~~
davidw
Or, even better, find a less colloquial way of expressing yourself.

Not that I have a problem with the word 'fuck'; just that it's not really
appropriate for most serious discussions.

------
hartror
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came..>.

------
yanw
I think that most of the uproar is about people interpreting this agreement as
a direct business deal and Google will get it's traffic sped up and that they
are somehow legislating and neither is true.

Also many forget that Verizon is the company owning the pipes and spectrum,
not Google, and as much as it's unpleasant to think about, NN won't be put
into law without teleco input.

~~~
ryanhuff
Do you acknowledge that Google and Verizon now have an interesting business
relationship, where the success of one party in the mobile space directly
influences the other? Vested interests do drive people and companies to behave
differently.

In this case, its reasonable to wonder if Google has changed from champion of
NN to a company that sees its next great revenue pool (mobile) forming before
its eyes.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
You appear to be hinting at the "android" argument that I've never seen
spelled out properly. Care to explain why this makes such a big difference
compared with say HQ Youtube carrying TV shows to homes supplied with internet
by Verizon?

Because to my euro eyes it seems like US fanboys cheering on Apple, iPhones
and AT&T, which makes Google, Android and Verizon the "baddies" in this tag
team match. And yet you get Android phones on all carriers, including AT&T,
and the iPhone seems to be coming to Verizon (and I assume all other carriers
once exclusivity is broken, like in many other countries) so these "teams" are
basically fiction.

So where's the real beef here?

