Google Aims to Separate Fact from Fiction Around Net Neutrality Proposal

Google HQ to See Protests

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:

[ Search]

Update: Wired is reporting that Net neutrality group Free Press and MoveOn.org will lead a protest at Google’s headquarters Friday.

Orginal Article: Google has posted a lengthy article about "myths and facts" surrounding the net neutrality proposal it introduced with Verizon this week. This proposal has been controversial to say the least, and while this may not be enough to change all minds, it is certainly worth taking look at.

First off, let’s look at what Google says are "myths" about the policy. These include:

1. Google has "sold out" on network neutrality.
2. This proposal represents a step backwards for the open Internet.
3. This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless.
4. This proposal will allow broadband providers to "cannibalize" the public Internet.
5. Google is working with Verizon on this because of Android.
6. Two corporations are legislating the future of the Internet.

I think most opponents of the proposal will be most interested in what Google has to say around numbers  3 and 5. The whole wireless being treated differently thing seems to be rubbing a lot of people the wrong way. That combined with the fact that Google has a growing interest in the mobile space (not to mention Verizon’s even more obvious interest) just hasn’t sat well with everybody.

Open - How Open is Google/Verizon's proposal?First of all, as far as Android is concerned, Google says, "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."

Google maintains that the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, giving consumers more choices among providers. Another factor the company brings up is that wireless networks employ airwaves, as opposed to wires, and "share constrained capacity among man users.

"In our proposal, we agreed that the best first step is for wireless providers to be fully transparent with users about how network traffic is managed to avoid congestion, or prioritized for certain applications and content," the company says. "Our proposal also asks the Federal government to monitor and report regularly on the state of the wireless broadband market. Importantly, Congress would always have the ability to step in and impose new safeguards on wireless broadband providers to protect consumers’ interests."

That’s really just the tip of the iceberg of what Google has to say on this matter. Read the whole piece here. Have they said anything to change your mind? 

Google Aims to Separate Fact from Fiction Around Net Neutrality Proposal
Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • Guest

    I think it’s time for the government to split big G or do something about it. Too much abuse of power.

  • Guest

    If they need a lawyer to defend their “proposal” then Google has already lost a lot of credibility with me. Plus, in their defending memo, the word “Congress” keeps coming up; never a good thing. One of the main things, if not THE main thing that has made Google such an awesome company to this point is I have always felt they were with us. “Proposals” like this shine a bright light into the impending corruption of their democratic values, and the dilution of their singular place as a huge corporation that you can still trust to do what’s right for all.

    • http://www.stupidcatpictures.com I Wanna Fight

      These days you can’t go to the bathroom without a lawyer approving the whole process.
      Google is being smart by covering things legally, as the lawyers will always find a way to stick their noses in things in order to make a buck. It’s not always a case of who is right and who is wrong, but who has the lawyer that can hold out the longest.
      Think about this: Someone gets caught shoplifting. They get a lawyer, who gets the case postponed over and over and it never goes to trial until they have bled out as much money as they can get out of the defendant, or the government if they are appointed by the court.
      Would you want to buy a house without having someone qualified to look over the contract first? Of course not.
      Same thing for Google here.

  • http://www.ScrambledNeurons.com I Wanna Fight

    OK, just like Silly Palin cried over the so-called ‘Death Panels’ of the health care reform, there are people who will take anything out of context, twist stuff around, and flat-out lie to promote their agenda.
    I read the actual post first (try it, you’ll like having the facts for a change.) While I don’t agree with everything, I do agree it is a good start.
    There are those who snipe at Google just because they are a big target, whether or not there is any basis in fact to their accusations. They simply want their fifteen minutes of fame, or to otherwise inflate their egos.
    Think about this: Where would the Internet be today without Google? Is your web experience better or worse?

  • Kat

    Google have mis-stepped here with it’s Myth and Fact approach – makes them look arrogant and is going to rub people even more the wrong way. And nope, their explanation on why wireless should be excluded and why carriers should be allowed to offer tiered packages outside the normal net is rubbish.

    Wireless runs on the same TC/IP protocols as the rest of the web – keeping it that way allows for the kind of innovation and fostering of strong start-ups that allowed Google to be what it is today.

    Everything is moving into wireless and cloud, by not supporting neutraility for wireless Google are effectively trying to stop anyone else from benefiting from the freedom they had starting up.

    • Guest

      “Wireless runs on the same TC/IP protocols as the rest of the web – keeping it that way allows for the kind of innovation and fostering of strong start-ups that allowed Google to be what it is today.”

      What does the use of TCP/IP have to do with anything?

      There is NOTHING in the net neutrality discussion that in any way impacts TCP/IP.

      Are you trying to create your own myths, which Google would then have to be arrogant to correct?

      Would you prefer no protection at all?

  • Guest

    Most people won’t read Google’s statement, or even take the time to understand the issues but will instead make judgments based on issues, or even personal prejudices that have nothing to do with net neutrality.

    While I would agree the proposal is not perfect it does protect our freedom to access the content we want to access as opposed to the content our service providers want us to access, or not to access so it is a step in the right direction.

    I find it strange that some people would prefer leaving the decision of what they can and can’t access in the hands of their service providers but maybe it is just a case of ‘ignorance is bliss’.

  • Join for Access to Our Exclusive Web Tools
  • Sidebar Top
  • Sidebar Middle
  • Sign Up For The Free Newsletter
  • Sidebar Bottom