This is all so absurd. Why is anyone mad at Google over this Verizon thing?
Is Verizon so evil that just talking to them about the future of networks is enough for Google to be evil by association? (Actually, don't answer that.)
The argument in this article is that Google touches every part of the internet, and you can't live without their services even if you wanted to, because they're so widespread. I can accept that, but wouldn't that also mean that Google has an interest in a free and neutral internet, because their services are so widespread?
The very core of Google's business is derived from indexing all of the content on the internet. Their stated goal is to "index all the world's data". How exactly would cutting back-room deals for special traffic shaping with Verizon help Google?
Verizon, however, has a serious interest in preventing competition. They mostly sell network access at a premium price, which they can only do because they've gone to great lengths to limit the choices available to consumers.
Verizon seeks to limit access to consumers, while Google seeks to broker access between the user and whatever data they're searching for.
The more Verizon can stifle the competition and trap users, the more secure their business is. Google, however, is made more secure by every piece of user-contributed content that gets created. When Google indexes a new website, Google is increasing in value. When a user uploads to Youtube, Google is increasing in value. When someone makes a phone call with Google Voice, Google is increasing in value.
I can imagine Google providing internet access, but could you imagine Verizon providing Google-like data indexing services for public use? Remember that Google killed the phone book. We take it for granted now, but that's hugely significant. Verizon should be terrified of them providing cheap wireless communication, but Google need not be terrified of Verizon competing in the data indexing space.
Verizon needs to be a successful network access provider, and Google wants to be the hub for all data on the network. It makes perfect sense that they should be in talks.
Moreover, I've yet to understand most of the arguments against their policy proposal, beyond disappointment that they excluded wireless internet from regulation. (Which I think is a good thing for now).
I'm with you on this so far as the agreements seem rather reasonable, and I kind of assumed that agreeing not to include wireless in the deal for the moment was a compromise with Verizon so they'd agree to the regulations in the first place.
net neutrality is required if we want a free market where someone with a great idea can compete with Giant Corporation X. A lack of rules which allows Giant Corporation X to create artificial barriers to entry, which is exactly what a lack of neutrality will allow, will lead to a market that is not based primarily on merit.
I didn't speak against net neutrality. I spoke against regulations on wireless internet to enforce it at the current time. (For what its worth, I would be against any proposal that insisted that net neutrality regulations could never be implemented).
Tabling the issue for wireless networks for now might be the wrong position. (I don't think it is, but I could be wrong). But it is hardly the same as implementing policies that would forever block neutral wireless networks-- most of the critics I've read over the past few days have characterized the Google/Verizon deal as a total loss of neutrality on wireless networks, forever. It specifically outlines an annual review of the current policy.
That's hardly language of a "surrender monkey" (as Wired so inarticulately put it).
Most of us find it hard to believe that once such large corporations are able to create a tiered network there is little chance that it will ever change given their enormous financial stake in it.
Google's stated goals have little to do with their real goals of making money. Personally after the AdMob deal I started to look at Google much differently.
> The argument in this article is that Google touches every part of the internet, and you can't live without their services even if you wanted to, because they're so widespread. I can accept that, but wouldn't that also mean that Google has an interest in a free and neutral internet, because their services are so widespread?
Google has a financial interest in its services being available as widely and quickly as possible.
Google has a different kind of interest in other folks services being available and the specific interest depends on who and what services we're talking about.
You are using two different logics for Google and Verizon.
The main point is that Google is by far the #1 search engine, and online advertiser. Once you have the whole market (or most of it) for yourself, you can't go any further. At that point the second best thing you can do is raise the bar for any future competitors.
So as you say Google touches every part of the Internet. But they also have a _lot_ of money. If we end up in a world without net neutrality and ISPs and content providers start to make their own deals, then Google can spend its money to ensure that its services won't get slowed down. However any Google competitor will then have to pay a lot more to compete with Google.
In other words Google can make a deal with Verizon because Google and Verizon don't really compete. And while paying Verizon to ensure good speeds is a disadvantage for Google, it is a lot worse for Google's competitors.
Comments
This is all so absurd. Why is anyone mad at Google over this Verizon thing?
Is Verizon so evil that just talking to them about the future of networks is enough for Google to be evil by association? (Actually, don't answer that.)
The argument in this article is that Google touches every part of the internet, and you can't live without their services even if you wanted to, because they're so widespread. I can accept that, but wouldn't that also mean that Google has an interest in a free and neutral internet, because their services are so widespread?
The very core of Google's business is derived from indexing all of the content on the internet. Their stated goal is to "index all the world's data". How exactly would cutting back-room deals for special traffic shaping with Verizon help Google?
Verizon, however, has a serious interest in preventing competition. They mostly sell network access at a premium price, which they can only do because they've gone to great lengths to limit the choices available to consumers.
Verizon seeks to limit access to consumers, while Google seeks to broker access between the user and whatever data they're searching for.
The more Verizon can stifle the competition and trap users, the more secure their business is. Google, however, is made more secure by every piece of user-contributed content that gets created. When Google indexes a new website, Google is increasing in value. When a user uploads to Youtube, Google is increasing in value. When someone makes a phone call with Google Voice, Google is increasing in value.
I can imagine Google providing internet access, but could you imagine Verizon providing Google-like data indexing services for public use? Remember that Google killed the phone book. We take it for granted now, but that's hugely significant. Verizon should be terrified of them providing cheap wireless communication, but Google need not be terrified of Verizon competing in the data indexing space.
Verizon needs to be a successful network access provider, and Google wants to be the hub for all data on the network. It makes perfect sense that they should be in talks.
Moreover, I've yet to understand most of the arguments against their policy proposal, beyond disappointment that they excluded wireless internet from regulation. (Which I think is a good thing for now).
I'm with you on this so far as the agreements seem rather reasonable, and I kind of assumed that agreeing not to include wireless in the deal for the moment was a compromise with Verizon so they'd agree to the regulations in the first place.
net neutrality is required if we want a free market where someone with a great idea can compete with Giant Corporation X. A lack of rules which allows Giant Corporation X to create artificial barriers to entry, which is exactly what a lack of neutrality will allow, will lead to a market that is not based primarily on merit.
I didn't speak against net neutrality. I spoke against regulations on wireless internet to enforce it at the current time. (For what its worth, I would be against any proposal that insisted that net neutrality regulations could never be implemented).
Tabling the issue for wireless networks for now might be the wrong position. (I don't think it is, but I could be wrong). But it is hardly the same as implementing policies that would forever block neutral wireless networks-- most of the critics I've read over the past few days have characterized the Google/Verizon deal as a total loss of neutrality on wireless networks, forever. It specifically outlines an annual review of the current policy.
That's hardly language of a "surrender monkey" (as Wired so inarticulately put it).
Most of us find it hard to believe that once such large corporations are able to create a tiered network there is little chance that it will ever change given their enormous financial stake in it.
Google's stated goals have little to do with their real goals of making money. Personally after the AdMob deal I started to look at Google much differently.
Can you elaborate? What happened with AdMob?
> The argument in this article is that Google touches every part of the internet, and you can't live without their services even if you wanted to, because they're so widespread. I can accept that, but wouldn't that also mean that Google has an interest in a free and neutral internet, because their services are so widespread?
Google has a financial interest in its services being available as widely and quickly as possible.
Google has a different kind of interest in other folks services being available and the specific interest depends on who and what services we're talking about.
You are using two different logics for Google and Verizon.
The main point is that Google is by far the #1 search engine, and online advertiser. Once you have the whole market (or most of it) for yourself, you can't go any further. At that point the second best thing you can do is raise the bar for any future competitors.
So as you say Google touches every part of the Internet. But they also have a _lot_ of money. If we end up in a world without net neutrality and ISPs and content providers start to make their own deals, then Google can spend its money to ensure that its services won't get slowed down. However any Google competitor will then have to pay a lot more to compete with Google.
In other words Google can make a deal with Verizon because Google and Verizon don't really compete. And while paying Verizon to ensure good speeds is a disadvantage for Google, it is a lot worse for Google's competitors.