Google and Verizon sign net neutrality agreement, begin the end of net neutrality? (update: Google, Verizon deny claims)
By Tim Stevens 
posted August 5th 2010 11:59AM
posted August 5th 2010 11:59AM
That sounds good, but according to Politico the deal still allows Verizon to "prioritize certain traffic" -- more or less defeating the whole purpose if true. More troublingly, Verizon is able to do whatever it wants when it comes to managing wireless broadband, through mobile hotspots or, indeed, the plethora of Android handsets it now offers. Mind you, neither company is coming forward to discuss these supposed plans (Google saying it has "nothing to announce at this point") so this could all be much ado about nothing. We certainly hope it is, especially since we're talking about two companies who last year pledged they wanted to "ensure the openness of the web around the world."
Update: Phew... we think. Google's Public Policy Twitter account just belted out a denial of these claims, straight-up saying that the New York Times "is wrong." Here's the full tweet, which certainly makes us feel a bit more at ease. For now. "@NYTimes is wrong. We've not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet."
Update 2: Verizon's now also issued a statement and, like Google, it's denying the claims in the original New York Times report. It's as follows:
"The New York Times article regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken. It fundamentally misunderstands our purpose. As we said in our earlier FCC filing, our goal is an Internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation. To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect."
do no evil?
@LSE $$$ talks, nuff said.
@IceTheGreat
Always like Engadget to use a slightly less demeaning story of certain parties that they prefer. Engadget cites Bloomberg but they should also read the New York Times piece cited on Mashable.
Here is the New York Times piece, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html?_r=3&ref=technology
And then here is Mashable's more accurate take. http://mashable.com/2010/08/05/google-verizon-net-neutrality/
Google and Verizon are not just saying that some information can be "prioritized" but also that money comes into the equation. Read both articles.
C'mon Engadget, write the facts, not just a slightly slanted story leaving out the good details.
@LSE Official: Google is next Microsoft.
@LSE And this is not first time they are breaking there promise. What does Google checkout has to do with "Organize world's information"? Organize your credit card information?
@LSE This is what net neutrality needs, a deal between two large companies to point out the problem with not having a net neutrality policy.
Apple is going to beat them to it.
@LSE Traffic prioritization improves end user experience if done correctly. It allows for data that needs low latency and low packet lose to be routed ahead of data with less stringent requirements. While giving ISPs the ability to charge differently for different type of data or block certain data altogether is bad, allowing them to give higher priority to data that needs it is good. Besides the prioritization is all based on metadata, so if you don't want your traffic messed with, change the metadata.(Ok, so traffic trends and some other information can be used, but metadata is the fastest and easiest approach)
@LSE
Bottom line, they start messing with my speeds and overall network experience and I just look elsewhere for my wireless services. It's a slippery slope they're on and I hope they're careful because I like Verizon as a carrier and would hate to leave...but I'm not going to let them walk all over me.
Verizon: "Gee, Google, what do you want to do tonight?"
Google: "The same thing we do every night, Verizon—try to take over the world!"
@LSE I think bloomberg should just shut up and stop telling people rumors, did ANYONE really believe a new iPhone was coming to VERIZON in January? Huh? No one? Exactly
@LSE
Do some evil.
@Quantumman You are right, and necessary packet shaping does need to be written into any regulations. However, the real problem is that ISPs now have a bigger interest than just charging for "premium" access. You are beginning to see ISPs become content creators such as Comcast with NBC Universal. The corporations, all of them, have proven time and again they will gladly screw the consumer and take advantage of a situation without shame if it improves their bottom line.
This is what should be done... companies deciding this, not the government... plus the net bill that is up now is crazy
@tmark86
Indeed. Engadget loves to put a spin on their stories without disclosing the full information. Shameful.
@LSE
Well there goes the "free market" solution to this problem. The major content creators were supposed to have an epic battle with the content providers. Hopefully Net Neutrality would win. Obviously, they've found out that they can make more money if they agree to help each other out.
Anyone who still wishes the internet to stay open, free, equal, and non-tiered NEEDS to realize that the FCC must step in to regulate this.
@daaper
You are apparently blind to the fact that other carriers already control data speeds.
@Mike10010100
Oh, looky there. Turns out the whole rumor was WRONG. Just like the NYT/Engadget to push a rumor that casts doubt on Net Neutrality.
I don't understand why Google would want to pay MORE to have their content pushed. I'm glad to see that Google realizes that they can still force the content providers to equalize rates.
@LSE
This is basically how Verizon also spreads those Verizon iPhone rumors and crap. Get some random "market analyst" to say something.
@LSE
Update = FTW
@daaper
It's Verizon of course they will and try to put anything on your phone that verizon doesn't approve of and they will shut u down...goid luck with them I left them an will never use them again
@Spongecake
only, which is pinky and which is the brain??
@memeslayer
Correction: Google is the next Apple which is the current Microsoft.
@David V
Google is new Apple, Apple is the new Microsoft, and Microsoft is the new IBM?
@iPhooey Why even visit the site if you don't like what they're doing then visit another site, enough with the engadget bashing. Stop throwing a tantrum everytime your precious google and verizon get put on the hot seat.
@IceTheGreat Google is about to cut a deal with Verizon that would end the Internet as we know it.
According to a front-page New York Times story, the deal allows “Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content's creators are willing to pay for the privilege."
It would create fast Internet lanes for the largest corporations and slow lanes for the rest of us.
That’s why we’re starting a mass protest by Google users to stop these two companies from joining forces to sell out millions of people like us who use the Internet.
@Mr Deux
Wow! Who's having the tantrum now? Why look at the comments if you can't handle someone disagreeing with your precious Engadget? I know I'm not alone in not agreeing with everything Engadget throws at you on this site and thats the beauty of the internet isn't it. I don't have to agree.
Downrank just because you disagree. No one had anything to say... just like liberals to do, have no arguement.
@PAK King
First, read the update. Second, research the topic more.
Huzzah!
I like Google, but Net Neutrality should be SAFE, we dont want 2 companies monopolizing it.
@Beatnik
What you just posted makes no sense.
@Tes Well learn English. It made total sense to me.
@PWRWarTG
Then you have no idea what the issue at hand is. Please explain how a company can "monopolize" net neutrality?
@Tes Two companies because of their size determine what "neutrality" is in public view all the while money is changing hands to determine who has access.
I'm not saying that's the case but it sure could happen here. We simply have too many idiots in this country that don't even try to u understand the matter at hand. All they do is run around crying wolf about big government because they heard their favorite talk show host say it on the radio. They are completely ignorant of the fact that if someone neutral doesn't police airwaves and the internet that even their favorite anti government talkers could be silenced by the big scary left if they have the money to do so. It's just complete ignorance that allows our freedoms to be trampled all under the guise of ironically.......freedom.
@Blaque14K
Net Neutrality is a concept. Google, Verizon, AT&T, Apple...it doesn't matter. If they make moves to hinder the content or ease of access to information, then they have done away with that concept. There would be no net neutrality. Someone can't change the definition, no matter how big they are. They can adhere to it, or not.
@Blaque14K
I am with TES on this. it is not possible to monopolize a concept/ideology.
@Tes You have no idea how to use proper grammar. Fail.
@Jordus
Please, enlighten me.
@Jordus
If you're not going to enlighten me, please allow me to point out a tiny bit of irony for you.
A sentence must contain at least a subject and a verb, unless it is an imperative sentence where the subject is assumed. Seeing as I'm unsure of what it is that "fails", my grammar or me, you seem to have made quite the grammatical error yourself.
"The simple act of putting a period after a word does not a sentence make."
@Tes
dude don't argue with the idiots
they will bring you down to their level and beat you with their stupidity
@Tes
Agreed. +1 for understanding net neutrality
Ok my bad, english is not my native language, when I wrote about monopolizing I was referring to the Internet, not net neutrality, wow please do not make an ocean with a drop.
@Beatnik
No worries, I was just pointing it out to you. It's the scholars who decided to jump in after you who have mostly proven themselves beyond ignorant.
This would not be good for Google, so I doubt its true. all those ads on millions of little websites are what feeds the monster.
@Chuuchdizzle: Time for a haircut. Must save brain.
@Chuuchdizzle
Um... exactly(!?)
"All those ads" could potentially be exactly what Google gets a guarantee of premium bandwidth for. No way Verizon is going to drop the rate of the rest of Web traffic, but I could see them uping rates for various partners at an advantaged rate in the future - which would, de facto, end net neutrality and leave non-players in the proverbial dust.
Let's day I run a little website, and I want to generate some revenue w/ ads. If a big chunk of the web faster w/ one set of ads, and that leads to more click-through and hence more money, who do you think I'll be using as my ad provider? Google's interest here is anti-competitive - good-bye Bing, etc.
One for you, one for me.
Huh?
So I don't get.. how is Google bad in this? Or people just want to find something bad to pin on Google?
Google made an arrangement to make sure there's no traffic prioritizing on DSL and FiOS networks. This is only positive in my eyes. Google again doing their best to give us freedoms and openness.
What Verizon does on their own network has very little to do with Google.. so I'm not sure how Google is observed here as doing anything wrong. It's great that they've at least made an agreement for FiOS and DSL.
I guess, people just can't stand the fact that Google is an overall a good company. At least for now and unlike rotten companies like Apple who's only goal is to milk us for every cent they can.
And of course, this is all unchecked anyways. We need more information to even discuss this.