By Rob Beschizza at 7:15 am Thu, Aug 12, 2010
I suppose Google did make some compromises but I defy anyone to name another for profit company, technology or otherwise that fought for neutrality as hard as Google did.
What the u-turn suggests is that it fought for neutrality only as far as its business interests went, which have now changed. That seems obvious, but some Google supporters (still) aren’t happy accepting that Google works like this.
Holy shit, a for profit company actually wants to make money. My mind is blown.
but a for-profit company trying to ‘not be evil’.
That’s basically what I thought, too, at first. Reading it more closely, though, the broadband part really isn’t true. They created net neutrality for broadband *except* for “additional or differentiated services”. So basically everything on the open net is neutral vs each other. But if your cable company signs a deal and offers Hulu Plus to its subscribers then they can prioritize that, or ESPN3, or its new gaming service, etc. So under the agreement they can’t prioritze foo.com over bar.com. But they *can* take 4Mbps of your 5Mbps connection and allocate that to their “differentiated services”.
@Agies, your comment has blown my mind. I have never ever seen a comment like that before.
I don’t anyone would have cared if Google had just stated up front “We’ll be evil if we need to”. It’s the two-faced duplicity and inability to live up to their own principles that people are pissed about. Google should never have revealed the “don’t be evil” motto if the didn’t intend to live up to that. Didn’t their mothers ever tell them “don’t make promises you can’t keep”?
They must have adopted that “don’t be evil” slogan because their business would be so very very easy to make “evil”, eh?
Trying to calm suspicions before they arise?
No worry folks! Google has already what is really only a PR problem by releasing this new updated motto:
“Try not to be evil, but sometimes you will need to be evil to ensure you maintain your monopoly”
Wait… aren’t monopolies inherently evil?
Google didn’t fight at all. Get real. They made some statements when it was not an inconvenience to do so but now that it is they went completely the other way.
The thing is I’m finding it hard to read this deal as being all that evil. It basically creates net neutrality for broadband and allows for some prioritization of cellular networks which, imho, are a different animal all together.
It’s almost like they want to charge more for resources when there is not enough supply to meet demand.
But in five or ten years when most data is then going over cellular towers, people will scream and shout and Congress will just get involved anyway, so why not just establish neutrality now? Can’t they just continue to charge 20 cents for a text message and make their money that way?
As it is now minorities are more likely to not use broadband but use their phones for most web access. This will not end well.
@Agies, I don’t see how wireless cellular broadband networks are different from wired broadband networks in any way that makes Net Neutrality right for one and not the other.
To my way of thinking, wireless networking is how we move towards ubiquitous networking – but without Net Neutrality for wireless, we lose the platform which allows everyman to be a content provider on an equal footing with the corporations, and move towards a model where you most easily get your content from your connectivity vendor, because they can choose for you what you see, where you can go, what services you can connect to.
What, @Agies, is there that’s positive, that enriches the network of human interaction, in a tiered wireless network? If there’s nothing positive, what would be improved by adding Net Neutrality?
Because cellular “broadband” is a slow mess. Until it gets better I don’t have a problem with prioritizing something like maps and email over, say, bittorrent on a wireless network.
As far as I’m concerned ther real fight now should be about pricing voice, data, and text on the same scale since with a digital network bits are bits.
Unless, of course, Bittorrent sponsors with your phone company and you spend twenty minutes trying to get the map you want because the guy next to you really wants to watch Who Dat Ninja 3D.
The issue is going to be not what is logical or what makes sense to move into the fast category, but who pays the most money to do so (porn and eBay in all likelihood).
Google does no evil, and Fox is Fair and Balanced.
RioMcT: It’s almost as if they’re creating false scarcity so that they can charge more for resources when there is not enough supply to meet demand.
google & verizon merged damn and I did have respect for google ,as far as verizon goes
maybe we could sell it to china and let them shoot
the morons in charge of the wortless corp
and while there at it let them do in the idiots in washington also.
all this corp merging is nothing but greed and
and will adventualy ruin peoples respect for
a business,oh it already have.
The Huffington Post lists a number of the problems with this fake “net neutrality”.
You know everyone is painting an evil picture on Google when most of us donâ€™t understand whats really going on. All Google is saying is that the internet is young and that the government should not place any restrictions on it as of yet.
Google truly does no evil. Or do they? There is this one article I read at http://tech-senses.com/ called called â€œHow doing Business With Google Almost Killed A Companyâ€. That is probably the most evil thing Google has ever done.
Submit a tip
The rules you agree to by using this website.
Who will be eaten first?
Jason Weisberger, Publisher
Ken Snider, Sysadmin