Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Thursday July 10 2014, @07:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the Stand-by-and-do-Nothing dept.

Google, once boastful that it was the leading defender of a free and open Internet, has gone into the shadows.

FCC records show that since the Federal Communications Commission proposed in May to let cable and telephone companies offer special Internet fast lanes for companies willing to pay extra, lobbyists for Google have not visited the agency to intervene. Facebook has also been absent.

"Net neutrality got them where they are," said Timothy Wu, a Columbia University law professor in New York who supports open-Internet rules. "There's a danger that they, having climbed the ladder, might pull it up after them."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 10 2014, @07:58AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 10 2014, @07:58AM (#66960)

    So you're laming all over them for not hiring lobbyists? Lobbyists are not only good to you, they're morally required!

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Bot on Thursday July 10 2014, @08:04AM

      by Bot (3902) on Thursday July 10 2014, @08:04AM (#66962) Journal

      If they never ever hired lobbyists, yours would be a good point. I guess they did in the past, so original poster is right. Once settled, they are like all others.

      --
      Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 10 2014, @08:23AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 10 2014, @08:23AM (#66967)

      > So you're laming all over them for not hiring lobbyists?
      > Lobbyists are not only good to you, they're morally required!

      No, they are tactically required. As long as they are legal, the people who are pushing agendas that we don't like will be using them. Refusing to lobby when your opponents are lobbying is the surest way to lose.

      The article hints at what is really going on here - Google's connection to the cell phone carriers through android means they have lots of pressure to just let it go. Back when Google was first lobbying for net neutrality, android phones didn't even exist and google was beholden to no one. Now that they do exist and are major part of google's business model, google can be hurt (or at least thinks they will be hurt) if they piss off the cell phone oligopoly.

  • (Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday July 10 2014, @08:13AM

    by Pslytely Psycho (1218) on Thursday July 10 2014, @08:13AM (#66966)

    I haven't followed this too closely, so I probably am missing the point.
    Why isn't Google, FB, etc fighting this? They are the ones that will have to pay extra like Netflix is now. How does it benefit them to let this crap pass without a fight?

    What am I missing?

    --
    Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 10 2014, @08:27AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 10 2014, @08:27AM (#66970)

      > How does it benefit them to let this crap pass without a fight?

      Google and Facebook (and Netflix) are rolling in money. They can afford to pay practically any fee the ISPs charge.

      The companies that can't afford to pay are startups. The kind of company that might end up dethroning Google. So in a very real way Google has an incentive to just let net neutrality die. They'll still be king and all the challengers will have an even tougher fight.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Thursday July 10 2014, @12:29PM

        by LoRdTAW (3755) on Thursday July 10 2014, @12:29PM (#67024) Journal

        To add to that:
        Google is also jumping in on the cable TV business via Google Fiber. And they also have their own VOD service, youtube. So I would imagine Google also plans to build a walled garden via giving Google Fiber users first class gigabit access to youtube. Meanwhile Comcast, Verizon and what ever piddly little cable co./telco is left in the last mile game can go suck it. Netflix, Hulu and Amazon will either have to pay which will make them uncompetitive or simply go out of business (a catch 22).

        Man its like we are going back to the good ol AOL days. I cant wait!

        • (Score: 2) by jackb_guppy on Thursday July 10 2014, @04:49PM

          by jackb_guppy (3560) on Thursday July 10 2014, @04:49PM (#67160)

          AOL, great! Just found AOL 1.01 diskette the other day. I am good to go!

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by q.kontinuum on Thursday July 10 2014, @08:28AM

      by q.kontinuum (532) on Thursday July 10 2014, @08:28AM (#66971) Journal

      They might pay, but probably not too heavily because they are market-leaders and any provider not providing good google access will lose business. So Google, FB etc. have some leverage. On the other hand they make it difficult for upcoming competitors, because provider could fine them heavily without any backlash to the provider. Therefore, FB and Google strengthen their market position.

      --
      Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
      • (Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday July 10 2014, @10:10AM

        by Pslytely Psycho (1218) on Thursday July 10 2014, @10:10AM (#66993)

        Thank you. I had only followed this lightly, and I just knew I was missing the point.

        --
        Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by datapharmer on Thursday July 10 2014, @12:47PM

      by datapharmer (2702) on Thursday July 10 2014, @12:47PM (#67028)

      I suspect 1 or 2 things:
      1) They plan to become an ISP so they don't care. I suspect they will offer wireless primarily per their interest in android and the "chrome series" of devices (cast, book, etc) which all rely on wifi. If they use balloons etc. They don't even have to do this permanently. They can go market by market and target a local population by killing 90% of contracts by offering a "free" alternative.
      2) They play hardball and stick it to the ISPs after the fact (this could also be coupled with #1). Why waste money lobbying, just let the ISPs have their way and when they win say "sorry we aren't offering our services to customers of XYZ ISP as we are unable to provide a satisfactory user experience. Here are some alternative ISPs that work well with our services (for example connect to the "google wifi cloud")." Could you even imagine the flight of customers from an ISP if google, gmail, youtube, etc. were suddenly unavailable? Even if they had no alternative there would be no end to the rabid calls to their support lines by angry customers.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 10 2014, @05:30PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 10 2014, @05:30PM (#67188)

        Google bends over backwards to ensure that everyone can access their services. For a very telling example, look into what they did to appease China.
        Besides, nothing Google does is without competition. If YouTube were unavailable to a lot of people, Vimeo (etc) would become popular. Hell, just look at the smartphones that force you to use Bing. Google stands to lose a lot if they became unavailable.

        Google's taking a different approach on this - rather than trying to legislate this, they're using a market-based approach of shaming ISPs, and getting customers to fight the battle for them. We'll see if that works out to their advantage.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by pgc on Thursday July 10 2014, @11:13AM

    by pgc (1600) on Thursday July 10 2014, @11:13AM (#67003)

    Why would they fight this? Next step in their world-domination plan would be to become an ISP of course. So they'll not only control the content, but also the channels.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Thursday July 10 2014, @12:53PM

      by Sir Garlon (1264) on Thursday July 10 2014, @12:53PM (#67031)

      Next step in their world-domination plan would be to become an ISP of course.

      Google already is an ISP [google.com]. Perhaps you meant a "nationwide ISP" like Comcast or Verizon. Maybe, but maybe not: why spend money running fiber out to small towns when you can just cherry-pick the most lucrative urban markets?

      So they'll not only control the content, but also the channels.

      And that, in a nutshell, is why I want Google Fiber like I want a skin disease.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  • (Score: 2) by jasassin on Thursday July 10 2014, @11:18AM

    by jasassin (3566) <jasassin@gmail.com> on Thursday July 10 2014, @11:18AM (#67006) Homepage Journal

    Thanks Netflix. You pissed everyone off with your awesome business model and 60% (or whatever) of total Internet bandwidth usage. Sucks for me because I've never even used Netflix (online)!

    --
    jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0x663EB663D1E7F223
  • (Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Thursday July 10 2014, @04:05PM

    by nitehawk214 (1304) on Thursday July 10 2014, @04:05PM (#67132)

    This is a really bad sensationalist headline.

    Google is refusing to hire lobbyists to bribe politicians, and that is somehow evil? Only 'evil' to one of those politicians that are getting bribed.

    --
    "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
    • (Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Thursday July 10 2014, @07:31PM

      by SlimmPickens (1056) on Thursday July 10 2014, @07:31PM (#67247)

      And and since Google is a well connected multinational, you need a bit more than a list of lobbyists to declare "gone into the shadows".

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 10 2014, @09:06PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 10 2014, @09:06PM (#67293)

        > And and since Google is a well connected multinational, you need a bit more
        > than a list of lobbyists to declare "gone into the shadows".

        Perhaps you could show us recent examples of Google making a serious effort to fight for net neutrality.

        • (Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Thursday July 10 2014, @10:33PM

          by SlimmPickens (1056) on Thursday July 10 2014, @10:33PM (#67328)

          Perhaps you could show us recent examples of Google making a serious effort to fight for net neutrality.

          Why? I'm not claiming anything. I'm not even saying the assertion in TFA is wrong, just that the evidence on it's own isn't enough to make the statement. It wouldn't take much more to make the statement. The article could have said "we looked hard for other efforts but found nothing" or commented on Googles other past efforts having waned but it doesn't."

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @04:58AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @04:58AM (#67443)

            > I'm not claiming anything. I'm not even saying the assertion in TFA is wrong,
            > just that the evidence on it's own isn't enough to make the statement.

            You have correctly identified your claim - that proof of zero lobbying activity is insufficient. But that claim implies that there is another form of proof that would be sufficient. Name it. It doesn't have to be one way or the other, but if you can't even name what else google might do, then your contribution to the discussion is a net negative.

            • (Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Friday July 11 2014, @09:01AM

              by SlimmPickens (1056) on Friday July 11 2014, @09:01AM (#67508)

              You have correctly identified your claim

              OP asked me for examples to prove a claim I'm not making. In context my statement is correct.

              if you can't even name what else google might do, then your contribution to the discussion is a net negative

              I don't have to make a list of what Google might do in order to point out that someone else's claim is unsubstantiated. Perhaps you could contribute such a useful list.

              Where is the statement from Google or Facebook?
              What about a response to Google's public policy page on Net Neutrality where they call Washington intractable and clearly state they have not given up but shifted their efforts elsewhere?
              What about mentioning Google's recent 'ISP report card' ISP shaming initiative?

              Never trust a Law Professor.

    • (Score: 2) by AnythingGoes on Thursday July 10 2014, @11:34PM

      by AnythingGoes (3345) on Thursday July 10 2014, @11:34PM (#67347)
      I think the point is that if Google had EVER hired lobbyists in the past, then they should carry lobbying on in this, but if they NEVER hired lobbyists then the article is blaming Google wrongly.
      So the question is
      1) Has Google EVER employed lobbyists in the past?
      2) If yes, then why are the lobbyists not involved now?
      And for those who want the answer to 1 - http://www.dailydot.com/politics/lobbyists-net-neutrality-fcc/ [dailydot.com]
      • (Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Friday July 11 2014, @01:44AM

        by SlimmPickens (1056) on Friday July 11 2014, @01:44AM (#67382)

        I don't know. I agree with Net Neutrality in a philosophical sense but the first thing I learned in networking school fifteen years ago is that shaping is necessary to make large networks operate properly. It's particularly noticeable here in Australia where we only have a few 'pipes' to the US. Basically everything from the USA comes in faster and with and with less packet loss on my Telstra business 4G connection, despite the latency, than my home ADSL connection, and that's because Telstra owns bandwidth all the way to the USA and the business customers get prioritization.

        Also, how long is this proposal open for? Have Google even 'not done anything' yet? And how do we know they're not attacking the 'problem' some other way?

        I just don't buy any of the reasons listed above as reasons why Google or Facebook would abandon Neutrality. It hurts them more than it hurts these potential startups. I'm sure they'd rather not pay money to Akami and take their chances with the startups. And I'd like to see a better analysis than the stupid Bloomberg article that started this story.