Suspected PayPal Hackers Seek Deal To Stay Out Of Prison
2 Men Arrested After Teen Was Run Over For His iPad
Why I was completely wrong about Google and net neutrality
Well, geez, color me embarrassed. If you've read my original post about Google's net neutrality proposal, you probably know I got hoodwinked by Google's promises of an FCC-regulated, perfectly neutral wired internet, which turned out to be nothing more than a sleight-of-hand distraction from its suspicious lack of promises of neutrality on wireless networks and future technologies.Yeah, wires are still huge now, but wireless networks are carrying a bigger chunk of our traffic every day. I'm not claiming to be the most astute analyst out there, but I figure I'm not the only one who didn't read Google's proposal carefully enough. So, upon further reflection, here are some of the things that strike me completely screwed up about it:
"Additional Online Services":
The proposal leaves "additional online services" unprotected, and that's a scarily broad exception. Anything that replaces broadband and delivers the same Internet content and services in the future is exempted from Google's mandate for neutrality. Just covering broadband isn't good enough, and this is a loophole you could drive a truck through. Not good.
The Wireless Problem:
While wireless traffic discrimination does have to be "transparent," all that means is that Google or other big service providers have to tell us when some data gets special treatment. It certainly doesn't do anything to ensure neutrality or keep companies from setting up priority delivery of each other's content ... we'll just have to watch them do it publicly. Again, not good enough.
That's just scratching the surface. For a deeper (but still very readable) analysis of the problems with Google's proposal, check out this article by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Comments
17
Subscribe to commentsJayTKayAug 14th 2010 10:17PM
Thanks, Jay! Very few writers publish evolving views. Usually people seem dedicated to defending their previous positions.
Wiizer [Now with 320 Gigs On My Launch PS3!]Aug 14th 2010 10:44PM
So yeah... I read the article, and besides Google leaving out wireless, I fail to see the 'evil'...
Has anyone else come forward with a net neutrality proposal with any other ISP in FAVOR of the public?... Anyone?
People love black/white, good/bad, simple/simple.
No need to trash your whole train of thought just to fit in with the internet hivemind, Mr. Hathaway.
jesseAug 18th 2010 7:35PM
@boris
Hahaha yeah right File Sharing at tier 3. More like tier infinity,
For example why would time warner cable not disallow file sharing since they
are owned by mother company which is in the content providing business.
kingabraham3Aug 14th 2010 10:57PM
don't ever go into politics because politicians are never wrong about anything, so you clearly aren't cut out for it. that said, i appreciate the self-reflective insight.
SteapsAug 15th 2010 12:16AM
Politicians are never wrong? Wrong != Lying skum, so i guess you're right.
AnthonyAug 15th 2010 1:42AM
@Steaps I think you didn't note the sarcasm. Was the "/sarcasm" really necessary? I think that one was quite obvious.
lobotomies4freeAug 14th 2010 11:54PM
Additional online services are necessary for things like this to be viable. Consider Verizon's own FIOS services beyond internet. Internet takes priority to keep it neutral but most of the network capacity goes unused. That's revenue lost for Verizon on an expensive network to set up in the first place.
I might also add that it is innovative.
Wireless is harder to police with their being more standards out there constantly changing and how far can we honestly enforce things so spotty as wireless reception right now anyways? I want it "equal" but that's a hard thing to define the way things are now
Just my two cents
AlainAug 15th 2010 12:43AM
What? This comment doesn't make much sense, frankly. What does spotty wireless reception have to do with a policy of network neutrality? You seem to be implying they'd just implement whatever priorities they please and then claim it was just the state of the network..?
There have been precious few occasions in history where companies have tried to hoodwink federal regulators on this kind of scale. Even if it were possible, I don't see how it's a particularly strong argument against putting the regulation in place.
I also don't quite understand what you mean with your first paragraph. "Revenue lost" for Verizon? Either they have subscribers to their services or they don't; until ISPs actually operate on a "pay for what you use" basis (which I for one would welcome, despite being a very high traffic user) this argument is specious at -best-. Also, your standalone "I might also add that it is innovative" comment is in a vacuum and frankly makes no sense with any context I can think of.
On original topic: glad to see you've come around, Jay. I do believe Google [mostly] wants to be good, but it's on us to keep them honest.
lobotomies4freeAug 15th 2010 1:23AM
Revenue lost. Meaning if they are required to upkeep this network even in places where the demand hasn't reached its capacity they built it for nothing. That's wasted money unless they can use the free bandwidth for another service. Priority still given to internet traffic to keep it equal while allowing them to make building the network more financially viable.
As for wireless networks I don't think this will be just an issue of priority sites but priority markets as well (as it's also being discussed if Americans now have a right or a need for Internet the way we do for roads and plumbing and what the government's role in THAT is) and I'm just saying that's a much grayer area. Also wireless standards change much more quickly and there is less unity in the standards and implementation between providers. It's just harder is all I'm saying
AnthonyAug 15th 2010 2:01AM
There doesn't really need to be prioritization on a market-to-market basis. Most carriers actually have nationwide OC-192 (10 Gbps optical carrier lines) backbones. AT&T finished upgrading their entire nationwide backbone to OC-768 (40 Gbps optical carrier lines). Carriers lease all their networks out to other smaller carriers.
MxxConAug 15th 2010 2:48AM
"This Week In Google" had a great episode discussing this topic: http://twit.tv/twig55 MUST WATCH for anybody interested in this topic!
JohnMWhiteAug 15th 2010 11:36AM
"It is about providing better service to people and companies that can pay much more than average guy or startup company can. "
What I'm concerned about is that it will end up providing the same services as now to people and companies that can afford to pay much more - and lesser services to those who can't.
If telecoms companies are struggling so badly they need to rejig their pricing schemes (and I see little evidence of this - it really just seems to be about increasing profits) to reflect a change in how the internet is being used, why does that necessitate smashing net neutrality? Surely people could just be charged per GB of traffic, regardless of what kind of traffic that is? People shouldn't have to pay more to watch Youtube than to use Facebook just because the companies are in different tiers or bribed Verizon by different amounts. If they're going to pay more, let it be because of traffic volume, not who or what the website is.
TezzAug 16th 2010 12:05AM
the simple fact is wired is more secure, thats why security systems are run on a closed circuit, so regardless of the gigantic push for wireless tech, we should all remember that while on wireless, we are less secure and for some who dont even use security on their wireless, eh you deserve to get hacked.
SugarDaddyAug 16th 2010 8:45AM
Um, I'm not sure what your point is. Most WiFi is considered wired internet because it goes through a wireless access point and then over a hard line connection to the ISP. Wireless internet represents cellular networks like 3G. This is the fastest growing area of communication. Most people aren't aware of the future implications in this area, and google and verizon are trying to secure their place by preemptively preventing regulation.
WiFi security doesn't play into this debate at all.
SierraAug 16th 2010 12:45AM
Mr. Hathaway, this is the true cost of being a fanboy for any company or even technology, not that I think you personally are a fanboy. I applaud you for looking at it without rose colored glasses and revising your opinion accordingly.
Google is exceptionally good at misdirection, no need to feel embarrassed. They played us all perfectly, great search (with little to no mention that we would eventually give up pretty much all of our privacy to get it). They said they had to find a way to monetize in order to provide it. I accepted that as perfectly reasonable (still do) but it turned out that the way they chose to do it is repugnant.
I doubt that Google is "evil" they are simply the same as any other successful business, ruthless. The same as Apple is and Microsoft would be if they could still get away with it. From the old days with Big Blue to today's companies like Facebook (with the Adobe's of the world thrown in) they all do this. The good news is that they all fail over the long run.
I used to champion companies and technologies for (I suspect) the same reason you do. I get excited about new stuff and cool technology. It's hard not to get caught up in it and perhaps this is the inevitable learning process. "Greed is good!" Is true for companies but not true for consumers. The sad thing is that people actually seem to buy into the companies PR and storm off to defeat anyone that doesn't agree.
I've come to the conclusion that fanaticism of any kind is the real problem. Not just in the tech sector either. The black and white polarization by the media of this country is doing everyone a disservice.
SugarDaddyAug 16th 2010 8:50AM
"I've come to the conclusion that fanaticism of any kind is the real problem. Not just in the tech sector either. The black and white polarization by the media of this country is doing everyone a disservice."
Cheers to that. Here's hoping for a new Age of Reason...
There's hope. There was actually a period of time in our culture where most people didn't blindly buy into the dogma of religion or capitalism and actually valued free thought. Those days are gone, but they may return... probably not any time soon though.
DimesAug 16th 2010 11:57AM
I fully support net neutrality on wired networks. In fact, I think it is a necessity. However, enforcing neutrality on a wireless network has a lot of drawbacks. First of all, wireless networks have very real bandwidth limitations. Wired networks also have bandwidth limitations, but the network can usually handle such large throughput that its almost never a problem. Also, wired networks typically handle "internet" traffic, whereas wireless networks handle internet and communications traffic. Let's say you want to call 911 from your cell phone. Obviously, you want your 911 call to go through immediately because it is an emergency. If your wireless network for neutral though, it would be illegal to elevate the priority of your 911 call. Sure, you could make an exception, but then its not really net neutral.