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."
please explain net neutrality in lowest common denominator. i have no clue what this all means? I thought internet was always liberation.
which has less competition: consumers; Google, Apple, Microsoft; AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile, Cricket, Qwest, Boost, Virgin, etc; or the FCC? so who do we want to put in charge?
@letsfixthis no one. Why should anyone be in charge.
The fact that Google is so close to being in charge is really scary.
Google PR Translation: "We signed something with Verizon.... but it's not exactly word for word the same thing as reported."
If these ISPs want to do away with net neutrality, I am all for it provided the government enacts competition laws so consumers always have an alternative.
Right now, I can only get Comcast in my building. If I had the choice to pay the same or more for a company who guaranteed equal treatment of all data I consume, Comcast can go for broke. Likewise if I lived in a FIOS area.
Am i the only one that thinks Engadget is trying to pull more hits by changing the actual time-fram of their "breaking news". I am at work now. I got in at 9 am, checked the site around 9:30 am and BREAKING NEWS was this article that I am commenting right here. It is now 2:36pm, approximately 5 hours later, yet the homepage reads "Breaking News 2 hours"...
I know it isn't a big deal...and I know comment probably won't even make it because it is "anti-engadget"...but I honestly just love Engadget and just don't appreciate them saying something is such breaking news when it really happened much earlier....
It just means that when I read "breaking news" on Engadget, I am going to assume it happened hours before whatever it says.
Ohhh....unless they are going by the Update Time...which is a little misleading. With that practice, ANY NEWS can be breaking news on Engadget, haha
Thanks,
Mike
I'm impressed that Google managed to not only get Verizon to give them priority at other sites expense, but also to say they are in favor of net neutrality at the same time. I think it's the wave of the future anyway; the carriers will convince the FCC and the government (via bribes) that "net neutrality" means exactly what the carriers want it to mean, which is they can do whatever they want. The FCC/government will agree since they are far too fond of the money/gifts/drugs/hookers they get from the carriers.
Think that Google's glib statement is the end of the story? The FCC just cut off Net Neutrality talks completely. However far Google and Verizon got, that was probably the last straw.
Here's a simple reason why net neutrality matters: innovation. If Google and Verizon complete their deal tomorrow and an independent streaming video startup launches at the same time, how is that startup supposed to compete when Google clearly gets first class treatment with its data and the startup doesn't? At least to the consumer, Google will appear to have a more consistent, superior product even if the new startup may be more efficient. Is the startup supposed to broker a similar deal with VZ to get the first class treatment? Not cool, Google. And definitely evil, even if it's borne of good intentions.
Seems like the times is getting slammed allot on the tech front lately...
@Dalton Atlas
Just like the original Times over here in the UK everything Murdoch owns turns into a political machine pumping out crap to make him richer.
So the NYT is owned by Murdoch, I wonder if he would have any reason to throw this kind of shit around.....Hmmmmmmm
I would say 'don't be evil'... but this story is just friggin boring as hell...
net neutrazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
If this would be Apple you all fandroids would be bitching, moaning, yelling, screaming that how evil is Apple and Steve Job.
@Raytem
With one big difference.. this rumor was nonsense.. but everything Apple does is very real, anti-consumer and anti-competitive and works only for them by any cost.
@Bozster
I don't think you know what "anti-competitive" means.
@Bozster It was as non sense as iPhone 4 antenna problem which New Zealand and Australian test shown iPhone is as good or as bad as any other phone. Of course, engadget would never cover that news since they have to keep their majority which is fandroids happy.
@Bozster Calling Apple anti consumer is like saying fandroid love iOS.
IF is this is true then all the Android phone's in my household will be on Ebay.
I note with interest that the "denials" are, in fact, nothing of the sort.
Google say they haven't talked with V about "paying for carriage"; they also say they are committed to an "open internet".
They did not deny anything about prioritisation.
Verizon say their goal is "openness and accountability" and that this is not a business arrangement with Google.
They did not deny anything about prioritisation.
If it puts Apple at a disadvantage , I`m all for it !
Of course, I can't post here either so the evil is apparently wide spread.
@nanotop
Two posts that are spot on will not go through and then as always this one does. I wrote that you should try to download the TOR browser and then search Google using TOR. You will then see the evil.
The real truth about the tech press is that it gets too involved with the silly fanboy controversies -- Android is free! Apple is polished! You're a fanboy! No, you're a fanboy! -- that we completely ignore the issues that really do need our attention, like this. Net neutrality is a principle that should be extended to all wireless networks too. All of the carriers have to be forced into a single protocol, an LTE variation presumably, and then there should be a rule that says, "Closest tower grabs the call, and then, if it's another carrier's, passes it on to them." Figure out a way that would still keep all the towers expanding. Maybe the closest tower, if it's not their call, gets part of the money for the call?
By having tech-competent readers get too involved in our little controversies, we let Washington divvy up the money to the big lobbyists. By the way, Google has a ton of lobbyists now, as does Verizon.
Our wireless system was set up to maximize the profits of the baronial network owners, and to help them capture markets with subsidization of phones in an exclusive way.
@Swift2001
Damn, I accidently up ranked you.
Anyway, I suppose you want unicorns and fairies too. Are you willing to pay for all this infrastructure?
By the way, when Google talks about the "open phone OS," aren't they talking about "open to the network providers"? They're saying, go ahead, Verizon, put your logo on the phone, phone maker, put crapware on the phone, put a trap in the firmware for those "jailbreakers," we don't mind, we're open!