
Protesters Gather At Google; 600 Employees Sign Petition, Organizers Claim - mcantelon
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/08/google_protest_net_neutrality.php
======
gojomo
The internet does not need 'saving' by a bunch of people chanting outside
Google with picket signs and petitions.

If the internet were as fragile as the neutrality-activists thought, it would
have never gotten where it is today. Compuserve, Prodigy, and AOL would have
won.

And the neut-advocates very worst nightmare scenarios -- rampant blocking and
throttling by the last-mile incumbents -- would quickly provoke a necessary
next-step emergence of new competitors and route-around technologies.

That is, _if_ the nightmare scenarios ever happened. Which they won't, because
even in a local duopoly, being known as the option which gives you less of the
internet will be profit-destroying.

The alternative neut-advocates offer -- the FCC riding in as a white knight
with new rules to save us -- is a dangerous child's fantasy. Any rulemaking by
the feds will involve backroom deals between companies large enough to send
lawyers to DC -- just like the Google-Verizon talks, hosted by the FCC!

Any rulemaking by the feds will generate stacks of hard-to-interpret
regulations that inconvenience everyone -- but hinder novel services and
upstarts that are hard-to-classify the most, so the giant incumbents won't
mind them so much.

That is, neutrality rules would freeze into slow-changing, confusingly-
enforced law a currently-fashionable, romanticized notion of the internet that
manages to make big companies and the political establishment comfortable.

It only 'saves' the internet in the same way you could 'save' a wild animal by
putting it in a cage. Don't let the FCC neuter my internet!

~~~
Ardit20
Why would the law be complex? You only need one simple line of law stating:

We find this principle to be self evident, that all internet traffic is to be
treated as equal.

That is it. No complex case law, no little print, no arcane law language.

"Any rulemaking by the feds will involve backroom deals between companies
large enough to send lawyers to DC "

Are you saying that you are scared of big companies, therefore what we should
do is surrender and let, possibly one of the most defining aspect of the
internet, be done with by the big guys, who have suitcases and suits?

You might say you are being pragmatic and that is the reality, but only if the
"bunch of people" keep silent and let the big guys get on without noise, you
know, a bit like the "bunch of people" did with the War in Iraq. The
corporations might have the money, but the "bunch of people" still have the
political system and the power to set the debate. No politician would like to
loose his job, and if some do then they will think twice in face of vocal
public pressure.

As for your other points they are a matter of speculation. I would need to
employ my imagination. I am sure there are many smart people on here who might
be able to get around the internet prioritization with some code, who have all
sort of programming abilities to overcome any technology obstacle. Maybe even
if such tiered system would come to pass, some clever guy would come with some
code which would make the ISP think that a certain site should be prioritized.
The vast majority of people however might perhaps have to live with the
reality of the way things are. In China for example, some people might use
route-around technologies, but, the vast majority live with a censored
internet.

As for AOL and all the rest, the internet, at least in popularity, is hardly
even 20 years old, if we take the year that it took off to be 1995 when people
started hearing about it in vast numbers. So AOL is really a baby learning how
to crawl in the grand scheme of things. Only very recently, if not only now,
has the internet become a serious medium with vast power of empowerment and,
we must assume, vast powers of control.

So you can hardly compare the past to the future. You hardly can say well even
if we live in a dictatorship someone will still write a pamphlet although he
might be imprisoned for it.

You can argue about the substance of the matter. Dismissing the entire debate
as something childish however and entirely misguided without providing any
reasons but rhetoric is hardly reasonable.

I might be wrong, I might be very wrong, but personally I think we should
fight and if in the end we lose, then we do so with dignity, not in 40 years
or so tell our children of that thing called the internet and then feel sad of
how all the baddies turned it into a one way communication platform.

~~~
gojomo
Your proposed 1-line law is a good example of the romantic, childlike,
wishcraft-dominated thinking about this issue that I'm criticizing.

That wording is neither enactable by any federal body, nor enforceable by
federal prosecutors, without a ton more detail.

And, its simpleminded application would prohibit services I'd actually like to
buy. I would prefer an ISP which privileged web browsing and VOIP over
BitTorrent and bulk email/video/software downloads. I would like it if traffic
that attempts to compromise my privacy or exploit unpatched software on my
home network was blocked by default.

In fact, I run a traffic-shaping router/firewall for these and other purposes,
including preferencing my own traffic over that of neighbors and visitors who
use my guest wifi node. Would that make me a net-neutrality-scofflaw? Oh, I
hope so.

I have the technical acumen to do this myself, but if my ISP wants to
implement similar policies the next few hops up, that also provides me with
positive value. And of course most customers can't set this up for themselves,
so they can only get positive value from having an expert -- like their ISP --
enact upstream preferencing and blocking for them.

Why make providing a service some people will prefer a federal crime?

We've made it almost 20 years without FCC rules to protect the internet. The
internet is faster and freer each year, without any help from the FCC.
(Thankfully, the FCC can keep busy fining broadcasters for dirty words.)

It is not true that "we must assume... vast powers of control" are about to
spring some trap. We can wait until actual harms are demonstrated -- if ever.
We can wait even further, until such harms persist after enough time for
competitors to adapt, before freezing into federal law starry-eyed notions of
how the network should work.

Network neutrality regulations: YAGNI.

~~~
fredpeters
I agree with you to a certain extent. However, I think that there is still
some scope for useful regulations of established standards. For example
http(s) should not have any limits put upon it. I would be happy with just
that. The FCC will always be behind the times, but they can still offer some
security in what would now be clearly unjust to tamper with.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>For example http(s) should not have any limits put upon it.

Entry of specifics into statute is not helpful - a lot of work was needed to
alter laws (in UK) which included prescription of snail-mailing various forms
or information so that the laws could be used with fax, then with email.

Hence, the specific protocol should not be used to limit only as an example
(admittedly this was probably your thinking too) - "there shall be no
prejudice held against network traffic sent using end-to-end encryption
regardless of origin except in the following cases ..." or some such. The
specific encryption can be mentioned in headers or in associated rules or in a
definitions section.

------
chengas123
This article is absolutely awful. I've never read anything more factually
incorrect.

"Free Press is concerned that Google's deal with Verizon to secure special
internet privileges on its broadband will lead to other internet providers
brokering deals with major companies. First Verizon and Google strike a deal,
then AT&T and Microsoft have a deal ... here comes Comcast who cuts a deal
with Yahoo"

There was no "deal". It is only proposal. And it would grant no special
privileges to either party.

That being said, it is good people are beginning to reorganize in favor of net
neutrality and hopefully will make their views known to their Congresspeople.

~~~
pyman
"It is only proposal". You make it sound like a proposal, in this case, is
much better than a deal. Believe me, it's not. What Google is proposing is
ridiculous and goes against everything we worked for in the last 20 years.

~~~
gojomo
Who is the 'we' in your statement?

------
tlrobinson
It would be amusing if this was one big Machiavellian plan by Google to rile
up internet users to put more pressure on for net neutrality...

~~~
jonursenbach
Oh if only that were the case.

------
moultano
If there was half as much outcry over the Obama administration and Congress
doing nothing on net neutrality, Google would never have needed to compromise
in the first place.

~~~
jsz0
Since the telecoms own congress we're probably better off without any new
legislation. Companies like Google standing up and fighting on our behalf
would have been the best possible solution but that didn't work out. I think
the FCC is the last best hope. Reclassify broadband so the FCC can regulate
properly. I'm sure the FCC is partly owned by the telecoms too but at least
it's an appointed position and there's an effective term limit on FCC
leadership due to Presidential elections. It's probably the only hope.

~~~
nostrademons
The telecoms own Congress because most ordinary citizens never call or e-mail
their reps and make their voices heard. A politician's goal is votes; they'll
listen to telecom lobbyists because that gets them money which they can use to
buy votes. But that's an indirect, inefficient process: they'd much rather
have some idea of what it'd take to get your vote directly.

When the bailout was up for a vote, there was a massive letter-writing
campaign, and it was defeated. The first time. Then we got distracted, it came
up for a vote again, and it passed. Imagine what we could accomplish if all of
the American populace was able to divert as much attention to influencing
Washington as a professional lobbyist is. In other words, what if we all wrote
our senators all day long instead of playing Farmville all day long?

Come to think of it, that might be an interesting hack. "Congressville".
Instead of managing a virtual farm, you manage a virtual legislature by
planting, growing and harvesting legislature. And you "play" with real letters
to your real representatives.

------
SudarshanP
A few questions. What gets classified as Wired and wireless? Suppose I use
fiber to my wifi router is the wording twisted enough to count it as wireless?
If that can be treated as wired, then don't you think even 10 years down the
line most of our data will flow through fiber? Coz at Office, Home, Hotels,
Airports etc. we would be using fiber till the wifi router...

Is the rate of growth of wireless bandwidth so much higher than the rate of
growth of fiber bandwidth that we will switch to a very wireless centric
internet?? Or will we use fiber till the wifi router in the future?

------
nickpinkston
I wonder if Google's protest-base is similar to the WalMart's ones in still
using their products? I'd wager so.

~~~
davidmurphy
I boycott Wal-Mart. But I still use Google. Not yet comparable.

That said I'd be slightly tempted to go protest outside Google's Santa Monica
office (the one near me).

~~~
nickpinkston
I'm saying I bet that the percent of WalMart protestors who still shop there
is probably pretty similar to the percent of Google protestors who still use
gApps.

------
alecco
I would prefer a ribbon campaign across the web. Too many startups and small
businesses are in jeopardy. I don't understand why all VCs are so quiet about
this. Perhaps they are scared of future black lists from the telcos?

~~~
patrickaljord
> Too many startups and small businesses are in jeopardy.

No they're not.

~~~
alecco
If Google/Verizon get their way any new (or existing but not participating)
major competitor can be throttled to oblivion.

~~~
patrickaljord
> any new (or existing but not participating) major competitor can be
> throttled to oblivion

No they can't.

~~~
alecco
How do you know? Google and Verizon didn't pass a law, they made a mutually
beneficial agreement. And the telcos have been saying they want to tax
successful business running on their pipes for years.

Note I wrote "can be", not "will be." This looks like a slippery slope for
fair use and content independence.Perhaps the EU and/or other big groups
outside Washington/USA can stop the telcos/ISPs.

You assert your opinion without giving an explanation and without taking into
account things will change (for good or bad.)

~~~
patrickaljord
> they made a mutually beneficial agreement

No they didn't make any agreement. They made a proposal. Google has been
advocating pure net neutrality on landline and wireless for the last 10 years.
They've been rejected by the FCC, the telcos and the governement. After 10
years of getting nowhere, they are trying to get net neutrality on landline at
least because right now there are no laws at all protecting net neutrality,
wireless or not. No one has pushed as hard as Google for pure net neutrality,
but after 10 years, Google needed to get real and face reality, no laws are
going to get passed on pure/absolute net neutraliy, so they went for this
proposal instead. Call them evil if you want...

> You assert your opinion without giving an explanation

So do you.

~~~
alecco

      >> they made a mutually beneficial agreement
      > No they didn't make any agreement.
    

Oh, come on, don't play the words. You know I meant they agreed on a
compromise that is mutually beneficial so they started pushing a joint
proposal.

The context is very relevant: Verizon and Google are selling android phones at
an unprecedented scale (save iPhones.) Google _was_ the #1 lobbyist of Net
Neutrality and Verizon is the second largest telco, lobbying against. Googles
"facts" press release was signed by a former MCI attorney (Verizon
subsidiary.)

I seriously doubt the telcos will stop at this. Just one example, why would
Google care to defend against P2P throttling? (Say, P2P video like Skype
calls, the same kind of competitor they are already throttling or blocking.)

~~~
patrickaljord
> You know I meant they agreed on a compromise that is mutually beneficial

In what way not having net neutrality on wireless is beneficial to Google?

> why would Google care to defend against P2P throttling?

They do care on landline, on wireless there is not much they can do. They
tried hard for the last 10 years but failed as nobody supported them (FCC,
telcos and gov). So they are trying to at least get net neutrality on
landline. Again, after ten years of battling for net neutrality, what do we
have today? Nothing, not a single law to defend it. Google realized that it
was not going to happen after lobying for it for years, so they at least are
trying to get it on landline while putting wireless on hold (temporarily as
the proposal says).

What have you done to defend net neutrality?

~~~
alecco
Ad hominem, I'm not going to bother to answer that.

------
bbuffone
One good thing about this - its nice to see that this generation can put down
their tweeters and actually try to make something happen!

------
pg
<http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/>

~~~
mlinsey
First PG post to ever reach -2?

~~~
blasdel
[http://searchyc.com/user/pg?only=comments&sort=by_points...](http://searchyc.com/user/pg?only=comments&sort=by_points_r)

~~~
pg
Looks like they have some kind of bug. There are comments there with 0 points
that could never have had 0 points.

~~~
chengmi
Those comments were cached when comment scores were turned off 10 months ago.
It's strange that they haven't been updated since then.

------
drivebyacct2
I'm horrified that the anti-regulation for anti-regulation's sake view point
is the top thread currently.

------
grandalf
Predictions for 2011:

\- Apple releases iWeb, a google search clone, signs deal with Verizon to make
iWeb the mandatory search engine for all Verizon ISP users.

\- Apple sells 25M Verizon 4G iPads for $99 each with 2 year service contract
($20 per month)

\- Apple announces record profits from search advertising.

* Google's core search business is easily cloned in 2 years. How to get market share? A deal with large ISPs. Most of Google's profits come from search advertising, and Apple now has a cutting edge mobile ad platform which is stronger than Google's. It's time to act. Search is not hard anymore.

Suppose Apple did this deal with Verizon and possibly Comcast. Google's share
of search advertising would fall significantly.

Google's floundering with Android (try a device before you dispute this) has
emboldened Apple to act fast to hit Google where it hurts, right in the core
search business. As Apple moves to the cloud and Google builds devices, Apple
and Google are converging rapidly into competitors.

~~~
euroclydon
What does it mean to be the default search engine for an ISP? Google
transcends deals like that now.

~~~
grandalf
If an ISP had a deal with Bing, it could simply map all search traffic
intended for Google to Bing...

google.com?q=snookie => bing.com?q=snookie

Bing could offer the ISP a percentage of ad revenue, and if users didn't
complain then (without net neutrality) there'd be nothing to stop it.

(I'd guess that most HN users wouldn't be able to tell the difference between
Google and Bing results if the styling were identical and they didn't notice
the domain name)

~~~
gojomo
You don't need new net-neutrality rules to prevent such shenanigans; existing
laws against fraud, trading on another's trademark, and monopolistic tying are
plenty.

And even the hoi polloi loves themselves their 'Google'; it wouldn't take much
to generate a consumer backlash against such a practice.

To the extent an ISP's heavy promotion or nudging might encourage people to
try another search engine they might like as much or more than Google, that's
a good thing. We need more search competition; a new entrant ought to be able
to buy enough attention to get a fair look.

~~~
grandalf
I agree, which is why I oppose net neutrality.

The example I used may be contrived, however I think the essence is true that
an ISP could meddle with Google's traffic and send search traffic to a
competitor.

~~~
drivebyacct2
Wait, these ominous predictions you cite are the reasons you are AGAINST net
neutrality?

The variety of opinions and reasonings for the positions that people take in
this debate are beyond me. Completely freakin beyond me.

~~~
grandalf
My point is that I don't think it would be ominous for most users, which is
why it should not be prohibited by law.

Of course I'd prefer not to have it, and I'd probably pay my ISP extra for a
"neutral" net access plan, but I don't have a problem with ISPs trying
creative packaging/pricing by capturing revenue via non-neutral business
deals.

Maybe Comcast would offer 50GB for $30/month if it was getting 30% of the ad
revenue Google gets from consumer broadband ad clicks.

Thought experiment: How much would you have to be paid to give up your right
to vote for one year? How much to give up your ability to use Google search?

~~~
drivebyacct2
A Google competitor would be nice. How hard would it be to really replicate
the ease of something like Google's hosted apps. Could users rent their own
access to it? Could they use DDG safely, along with their own servers for
hosting their mail, voice, etc.

But I don't want those services to be tiered. It enables Google and Verizon to
negotiate for that streaming video/audio/voice space, if they decide it's not
part of the "public internet".

~~~
grandalf
note: I don't think the hosted apps would not be targeted, only search
traffic.

It could become very ugly, and net neutrality is definitely the simplest and
cleanest approach, but there might be a win for consumers with less neutrality
too.

