- Posts tagged Net Neutrality
- Explore Net Neutrality on posterous
Google On Net Neutrality: Then (2007) and Now
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.
Great article. Google and Verizon are doing handstands to try to distract from the obvious, but it won't go away.
I'm hoping Google's dog and pony show today about new Android 2.2 features—of little use because the vast majority of Android users do not have 2.2, and can't get it—will not distract the tech press from continuing to focus on Google's complete reversal of their position on net neutrality.
Verizon and Google Justifications Don't Add Up
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 I thought the Google/Verizon deal might not get enough attention. I'm sure Google and Verizon thought the same or they wouldn't have made such a bold announcement.
Personally, I'm happy to see that many aren't letting this go by so easily. I think the first day's reaction was enough for both companies to get a bit defensive but, as witnessed by the above article, not everyone's buying it.
For some other views of the Google-Verizon deal in the first 24 hours, see these:
So Google sold the tech world out as it hopes to keep one of the largest pushers of its Android operating system happy.
CDT:
spotty proposal from two companies is no substitute for real action that serves the public interest
They announced a new policy recommendation that would kill the Internet as we know it, if implemented by FCC Chair Julius Genokowski and other policy makers.
The Google/Verizon statement is intentionally vague about what these new services would be and who would build them and what would be on them.
But principles are easy to discard, it seems, when one’s in search of the next goldmine. “Don’t Be Evil” can become “Just Don’t Be Stupid” when you’re in first place.
Google and Verizon: "Cable Operators Can Suck It. We Rule."
Sixth, we both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly. In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless
They buried it at number six of seven points, but there it is. Wired should do as we suggest, but wireless doesn't have to because we haven't built our empire yet. Wow.
This takes balls, but Google and Verizon probably figure tech blogs will simply publish the spoon-fed press releases, then shrug it off and write another Apple or AT&T horror story. The sad part is, they may be right.
The Economist: Verizon, Google and the Woody Allen problem
To be clear, if the New York Times is to be believed, Verizon and Google aren't just contesting the FCC's plan; they're deciding to pre-emptively disobey it.
Another good article looking into what Google and Verizon are up to.
Google: "Let's Do Evil." Verizon: "Works For Us."
Said laws of course would have oodles of loopholes, and would not apply to wireless in order to protect Google and Verizon's Android love affair.
Good article taking a look at what Google and Verizon may be up to. I hope we get more tech sites looking into this.
