dslreports logo
 story category
Google Lawyer Again Insists They Didn't Sell Out On Neutrality
Though this same lawyer in 2007 would probably disagree

Google continues to work on damage control over their deal arrangement telecom policy lambada with Verizon. The company took to their policy blog today to insist the company didn't "sell out" on network neutrality, but instead is just working "tirelessly for an open Internet" (in ways an ocean of critics just can't see). The post, by Google lawyer Richard Whitt, essentially argues that due to "political realities," their solution is better than the neutrality protections currently on the books (namely, none):

the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from.
-Google Attorney Richard Whitt, in 2010
quote:
But given political realities, this particular issue has been intractable in Washington for several years now. . .With that in mind, we decided to partner with a major broadband provider on the best policy solution we could devise together. We’re not saying this solution is perfect, but we believe that a proposal that locks in key enforceable protections for consumers is preferable to no protection at all.
Of course there's a third option: a neutrality foundation built by tough regulators based on the input of all parties (including small businesses and consumers), and not just two of the wealthiest corporations in the debate. Whitt glosses over the fact their proposal creates a toothless FCC that will be subjugated by industry-created self-regulatory showmanship, insists the wireless sector (dominated by AT&T and Verizon) is actually very competitive, and then proclaims their joint proposal has nothing to do with Android:
...such competition, while beneficial to consumers, appropriately should be seen as relatively shallow in nature.
-Google Attorney Richard Whitt, in 2007
quote:
This is a policy proposal – not a business deal. Of course, Google has a close business relationship with Verizon, but ultimately this proposal has nothing to do with Android. Folks certainly should not be surprised by the announcement of this proposal, given our prior public policy work with Verizon on network neutrality, going back to our October 2009 blog post, our January 2010 joint FCC filing, and our April 2010 op-ed.
You'll note Whitt conveniently doesn't want to go back to 2007, where you'd actually start to notice the stark contrast between a company focused on innovation, and one focused on turf protection. Take a look at documents written by Whitt in 2007, back when Google was trying to break into the wireless ad business. You'll see a remarkably different tone, with Whitt not even approving of wireless or wireline QoS prioritization, while repeatedly noting a lack of competition in the wireless sector and the myriad of possible threats entrenched, uncompetitive carriers pose consumers:
quote:
...Wireless providers block many common Internet applications and services outright, frequently do not allow network attachment of any device but their own, and reserve the right to terminate service arbitrarily for using other services that do not conform to a short and vaguely-defined list...Where the broadband incumbents do compete against each other in the market, they do so primarily based on qualities such as price and speed. Within the larger context of market dynamics, such competition, while beneficial to consumers, appropriately should be seen as relatively shallow in nature.
Aside from some pressure from upstart prepaid carriers (whose subscriber totals are still relatively laughable), the wireless sector hasn't magically become so competitive and open that Whitt's fears in 2007 no longer apply. Clearwire's partial network build adds a little competition, but recall Verizon removed the semi-disruptive Alltel from the market. The wireless sector remains a market absolutely dominated by AT&T and Verizon, who are still consistently crippling handsets and blocking applications they don't like in the hopes of retaining control.

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.

Even industry "consultant" Scott Cleland, paid by AT&T and Verizon in the past to attack Google (he apparently didn't get the memo that Verizon and Google are now BFFs), acknowledges Google's new perspective is about mobile ads. The continued pretense that Google's shift has nothing to do with protecting their new multi-billion-dollar wireless ad empire from tough consumer protections is aggressively insulting. While we wait for Google to admit the obvious, the Richard Whitt from 2010 might benefit from a conversation with the Richard Whitt from 2007.
view:
topics flat nest 

monk
@verizon.net

1 recommendation

monk

Anon

leave

leave it alone when some tries to fix something that works they will mess it up like this don't worry taxes are good for you

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: leave

said by monk :

leave it alone when some tries to fix something that works they will mess it up like this don't worry taxes are good for you
Google's blog post did a good job of laying out all the things their critics got wrong. You need to keep government out if a company is going to make a profit.

Jim Kirk
Premium Member
join:2005-12-09
49985

1 recommendation

Jim Kirk

Premium Member

Re: leave

said by FFH5:

You need to keep government out if a company is going to make a huge profit, and screw consumers
Fixed it for ya
omegabit
join:2002-08-26
Chatham, NJ

1 recommendation

omegabit

Member

Re: leave

Man you are just begging for the government to come regulate the internet, aren't you. Net Neutrality will be used to foreclose opportunity and possible competition, not guarantee it, just like radio, just like early television, just like cable, just like the early telephone system.

You are begging for someone to come and cripple the services you like, and leave only the largest giants standing, but you're too young and stupid to actually read any history, because MTV knows better.
LairdDrambeg
join:2002-08-30
Denville, NJ

LairdDrambeg

Member

Re: leave

You seem to be forgetting that the destruction of the common carrier model by the Powell FCC's fraud upon the nation was what reduced competition and eliminated innovative offerings and services from agile small ISPs who were able to respond to users requests and needs. Now we're reduced to dealing with a couple of huge bureaucracies who seem to not even be capable of internal communication to resolve customer problems

Now we're told that the FCC does not have the power to undo the Powell blunder? This is madness. Take a look at the nations around the world which are leaving the US in a cloud of dust and note that what works elsewhere, and encourages vibrant competition, is "common carrier" rules. Or are you of the opinion that because the "incumbents" own poles, wires, rights of way and metro-cable plant that they are to be endowed with a monopoly on Internet Provisioning and Services?
Pv8man
join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN

4 edits

Pv8man to Jim Kirk

Member

to Jim Kirk
Well...actually

The largest corporations and interests have heavy influence on our government, in order to get special benefits to themselves or to lobby against the competition.

Most of the time when government interferes, the end result is usually either more power or more benefits to the most powerful few, and usually disruptive or detrimental interference for the rest.

It's a vicious cycle.

Ever hear of the dead peasants insurance scam?

Companies like DOW chemical and Walmart have been secretly taking out life insurance policies on their own employees, paying the premium and collecting all the money when they die. (I wonder why they hire a lot of elderly folks.. hmm)

That's where government regulation SHOULD come into play, is enforcing anti-fraud laws.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords to FFH5

MVM

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

You need to keep government out if a company is going to make a profit.
Yawn.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: leave

said by funchords:
said by FFH5:

You need to keep government out if a company is going to make a profit.
Yawn.
Pithy comment. Is that the best you can do?
saiga6360
join:2010-08-09
Jersey City, NJ

saiga6360

Member

Re: leave

Good enough for me. Thanks!

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords to FFH5

MVM

to FFH5
I put as much thought into my response as you put into your original comment.

MSauk
MSauk
Premium Member
join:2002-01-17
Sandy, UT

1 recommendation

MSauk

Premium Member

US of CA

United States of Corporate America.

Welcome to the club

Murdoc49
Premium Member
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI

Murdoc49

Premium Member

Re: US of CA

said by MSauk:

United States of Corporate America.

Welcome to the club
You mean the "United corporate police states of america"?

gball
Master Yoda
Premium Member
join:2000-11-28
South Bend, IN

1 recommendation

gball

Premium Member

So

I guess the whole Google is out to save the children is out the window now?

Big business will always be big business here in the good old USA!!

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 edit

1 recommendation

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: So

said by gball:

I guess the whole Google is out to save the children is out the window now?
That was a PR initiative and nothing more. "Google the Good" was an ad campaign and that was all it ever was.

gball
Master Yoda
Premium Member
join:2000-11-28
South Bend, IN

1 recommendation

gball

Premium Member

Re: So

I was just being sarcastic...a lot of people have this impression that Google is for the good of the people and not like other big business's.

i couldnt say if that came from a commercial or not just something i have noticed in comments etc over time.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

1 edit

morbo

Member

Re: So

Google, up until this point, had been a contrast between what I'll call business as usual. Yes, Google always wanted to make money -- they are a business. However, when they did so it didn't make us customers/users feel like we had to take a shower after doing so. You know, the car dealer shower? Now, we may start needing a shower...

BillRoland
Premium Member
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL

2 recommendations

BillRoland

Premium Member

Re: So

said by morbo:

Google, up until this point, had been a contrast between what I'll call business as usual. Yes, Google always wanted to make money -- they are a business. However, when they did so it didn't make us customers/users feel like we had to take a shower after doing so. You know, the car dealer shower? Now, we may start needing a shower...
All the while happily mining your information for every drop they could sell off to anybody. They were never "good" or "different" they just had a really good brand manager who duped a bunch of people into thinking they were different.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo

Member

Re: So

No one cares about mined info except the super paranoid. It's a legitimate trade off -- free or near free experience for them mining our data.

And yes, Google was good and better than the rest. Go back and read. This change is a significant move away from that path. If it makes you feel smarter than everyone else for not believing Google was different then go nuts.

thender
Screen tycoon
Premium Member
join:2009-01-01
Brooklyn, NY

1 recommendation

thender

Premium Member

Re: So

said by morbo:
And yes, Google was good and better than the rest. Go back and read. This change is a significant move away from that path. If it makes you feel smarter than everyone else for not believing Google was different then go nuts.

I'm going nuts.

For years I got called a loony for implying Google was less than perfect. It all went downhill when we collectively agreed bots could scan our personal email in exchange for a superior free email service. It's not the end of the world, but it was the first step down a slippery slope to where we are now.

I use an android phone and Google calendar everyday. It's impossible to avoid them, their free apps are better than paid alternatives. I gave up a long time ago arguing against using their products, because they are made for our generation.

The generation of piracy. The generation that expects everything cost no money.

Google is capitalizing on that. Their phone OS beats everything else and look at its cost. Their calendar system is better than what I could pay for as far as portable device integration & functionality, $50/yr for big business & free to myself. Look at their email service in 2007 vs. yahoo mail.

Look at all the shit they offer for free.

It's not free, people. It's not free.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo

Member

Re: So

said by thender:

It's impossible to avoid them, their free apps are better than paid alternatives. ...

...

It's not free, people. It's not free.
It is possible to avoid them but people like their products and believe that the tradeoff -- a loss of privacy -- is worth it. People that don't think it's worth it are still free to use other, usually inferior products.
TahoeBlue
join:2010-08-12

TahoeBlue

Member

Stay on the case !

Good work bird-dogging Google on this.

I have also discussed this at

»tahoeblue.wordpress.com/ ··· llerman/

and referenced your comments.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 edit

FFH5

Premium Member

5 groups protesting at Google friday

»www.pcworld.com/article/203178/
Five left-leaning groups
that want the U.S. government to create formal network neutrality rules
are organizing a rally to protest a recent proposal by Google and Verizon Communications at Google's headquarters in Mountain View, California, Friday.

Organizers of the protest, including Free Press and MoveOn.org, hope that it will convince Google, which has long voiced support for net neutrality, to abandon the joint proposal with Verizon.

Organizers of the rally at Google's headquarters are urging the FCC to "not let Google be evil," in form letters circulating since Google and Verizon released their proposal.
Given today's comments in the Google Blog, I doubt some rally is going to change their mind.

P.S.>> organizers are ColorofChange.org, Credo Action, MoveOn.org, Free Press and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium Member
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO

1 edit

tiger72

Premium Member

Re: 5 groups protesting at Google friday

yeah i keep getting emails from credo. They no doubt purchased my name from MoveOn.

What irony.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: 5 groups protesting at Google friday

said by tiger72:

yeah i keep getting emails from credo. They no doubt purchased my name from MoveOn.

What irony.
Only 50 people showed up to protest.
»www.dailyfinance.com/sto ··· 9593288/
Expand your moderator at work

TCub
Premium Member
join:2008-09-03
Olmsted Falls, OH

2 edits

TCub

Premium Member

Google Voice Search..

Who cares!?!?!?! Did you guys see the new Google Voice Search App!!! It's frickin awesome!

I've been sending texts and doing damn near everything without typing a single word typed! This is awesome!

Well.. okay this is an important issue too..

I sent a letter to Google demanding they stop this crap.. Letters have been sent to the FCC and other important political figures to get this crap straightened out.

While I do like Google, I think under no circumstances should any large company get to make up regulatory rules, period.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Google Voice Search..

said by TCub:

Who cares!?!?!?! Did you guys see the new Google Voice Search App!!! It's frickin awesome!
It is available on my iPad and works very well. Very cool app.

TCub
Premium Member
join:2008-09-03
Olmsted Falls, OH

TCub

Premium Member

Re: Google Voice Search..

Didn't know it was on iPad. I'll have to check it out! Thanks for the heads up.

@MMH.. Right I understand that.. but they're passing these rules off as what they're going to/should follow.. Suggestion or not.. just leave it to a third party to ensure everything is kept fair and honost.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 edit

FFH5 to TCub

Premium Member

to TCub
said by TCub:

While I do like Google, I think under no circumstances should any large company get to make up regulatory rules, period.
They didn't MAKE the rules. All they did was suggest what they SHOULD be. That is what lobbying is all about. The FCC & Congress get to MAKE the rules.

Jim Kirk
Premium Member
join:2005-12-09
49985

Jim Kirk

Premium Member

Re: Google Voice Search..

said by FFH5:

said by TCub:

While I do like Google, I think under no circumstances should any large company get to make up regulatory rules, period.
They didn't MAKE the rules. All they did was suggest what they SHOULD be. That is what lobbying is all about. The FCC & Congress get to MAKE the rules.
You of all people show know how it works, having been part of the whole lobbying problem.

Oh, and I thought you didn't believe that the FCC had any power to make rules?
saiga6360
join:2010-08-09
Jersey City, NJ

saiga6360

Member

Re: Google Voice Search..

I'd like to see them go "oh well, it was just a suggestion" shrug and leave. Then I will applaud.

But I get a feeling that's not gonna happen.
omegabit
join:2002-08-26
Chatham, NJ

1 recommendation

omegabit to TCub

Member

to TCub
Oh well, I'm sure they'll get right on it then. Maybe we can get Nancy Pelosi to suspend going on vacation to take this important business up since you're sending a letter to "important political figures" and (gag) the FCC?
Bubba Rock
join:2010-04-21

Bubba Rock to TCub

Member

to TCub
said by TCub:

I sent a letter to Google demanding they stop this crap.. Letters have been sent to the FCC and other important political figures to get this crap straightened out.
wish I had your enthusiasm and optimism toward such things!!
MrHappy316
Wish I had my tank
Premium Member
join:2003-01-02
Columbia, SC

MrHappy316

Premium Member

Don't forget Sen. Demint

Our good Senator has the new google complex here in Goose Creek, SC so don't forget he is bought and paid for this year in the elections, but again our only challenger is Alvin Green.

mackey
Premium Member
join:2007-08-20

mackey

Premium Member

regulation bad, anti-consumer good!

I like this part:
we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now
They make it sound like regulation would be a BAD thing... Then again, it WOULD be bad for them (but good for consumers!)

/mackey

cpsycho
join:2008-06-03
Treadeu Land

2 edits

cpsycho

Member

Lawyers

Google retard writes:
MYTH: This proposal will allow broadband providers to “cannibalize” the public Internet.

FACT: Another aspect of the joint proposal would allow broadband providers to offer certain specialized services to customers, services which are not part of the Internet. So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability – so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet
Last I checked retard, this is already available. Why should I have to pay my ISP for a service I already get for free.

Special gaming channel = Steam, steam is a free channel. The games if course are not.

I already have an online secure banking service, guess what its free.

When I get old and decrepit, 911 on a cellphone on speed dial is better. Im already paying for 911 fees.
TahoeBlue
join:2010-08-12

TahoeBlue

Member

Fuzzy semantics of net neutrality

Preferential treatment by ISPs for back-scratching partners, and outright discrimination against competitors, are of course totally improper and should be illegal.

There is a another aspect to the fervor behind net neutrality which is perhaps not so clear, related to how it takes on a life of its own as a perhaps too simplistic black-and-white issue via fuzzy interpretations of what else it means beyond that.

»tahoeblue.wordpress.com/ ··· trality/