Google: No Verizon Deal, We Support 'Open Internet'

[Turborama]

Source: Huffington Post

08/05/10 11:55:10

Google responded on Thursday to a New York Times story alleging that it was teaming up with Verizon on a deal "that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay for the privilege."

Check out the tweet below:

http://twitter.com/googlepubpolicy"> googlepubpolicy

NEWS BROKEN ON TWITTER VIA @GOOGLEPUBLICPOLICY...
@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.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/t/google-no-verizon-deal-we_20393606477.html

---

Google: We still back Net neutrality

By Sharon Gaudin
August 5, 2010 01:50 PM ET

Computerworld - Google today denied reports that it is in talks with Verizon for a deal that could undermine Net neutrality.

According to reports in today's Wall Street Journal and The New York Times Google and Verizon, both major online players, are close to finalizing an agreement that would have Verizon speeding some online content more quickly than other content if the content's creators pay for it. YouTube, which is owned by Google, could greatly benefit by having its bandwidth weighty videos get priority treatment.

Google, however, told Computerworld this morning that there is no basis to the reports.

"The New York Times is quite simply wrong," wrote Mistique Cano, a Google spokesman, in an e-mail. "We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open Internet."

Full article: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9180192/Google_We_still_back_Net_neutrality

[Lightning Count]

1. Or at least our secret monitoring of your wifi networks SAYS we should support it.

:)

[damntexdem]

13. They didn't need secret monitoring to figure that out.

Not that they don't use monitoring for other reasons.

[DJ13]

2. They blinked?

[southmost]

5. the deal wasnt good enough?

(maybe they're holding out for more $$$$ ?

[Triana]

3. YeeHaa! We can all breathe easier now, right?

;)

[breadandwine]

15. Don't make your sigh of relief too soon. This looks like just a perfunctory denial.

What did you EXPECT them to say? We admit being a POS?


Of COURSE they deny it. That's just standard operating procedure.


Corporate deals are usually preceded by tight lips.


This is really not news. Just a perfunctory denial.


Net neutrality is still in peril.

[Triana]

25. Exactly my point. Thanks. n/t

[Amerigo Vespucci]

41. So far there is no official story saying "this deal is dead."

They're denying it because it shatters the precious image of Google as the epitome of wonderfulness, much like the way Steve Jobs has carefully positioned himself as some kind of Golden Wonder Smurf who improves the life of every man, woman and child touched by Apple products.

Here's a variant of the denial that was published on CNET:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-20012723-56.html

August 4, 2010 5:15 PM PDT
Google's Schmidt on Verizon and Net neutrality
by Ina Fried

TRUCKEE, Calif.--Google CEO Eric Schmidt declined to confirm a deal has been reached on Net neutrality between Google and Verizon but said his company is trying to bring together various factions.

"We're trying to find solutions that bridge between sort of the 'hard-core Net neutrality or else' view and the historic telecom view of no such agreement," Schmidt told reporters on the sidelines of the Techonomy conference following his appearance on a panel here.

Bloomberg and others reported earlier Wednesday that a deal was in the works.

Schmidt wouldn't say whether such a deal might treat mobile networks differently.

"I don't want to announce things we haven't announced yet," he said. "We have been talking to Verizon for a long time about trying to get an agreement on what the definition of Net neutrality is."

Schmidt said his belief is that the core of Net neutrality is the idea that network providers shouldn't be able to favor one particular provider of content over another, but he said that networks should be able to prioritize a content medium, say, voice over video.

"People get confused about Net neutrality," Schmidt said. "I want to make sure that everybody understands what we mean about it. What we mean is that if you have one data type, like video, you don't discriminate against one person's video in favor of another. It's OK to discriminate across different types...There is general agreement with Verizon and Google on this issue. The issues of wireless versus wireline get very messy...and that's really an FCC issue not a Google issue."

His comments came as part of a 40-minute informal press conference in which Schmidt also talked about the closing of Google Wave, the company's many issues in China, the growth of Android, the potential for Chrome OS, the search battle with Microsoft, and much more.

[whistler162]

16. Until next year when this rumor resurfaces.....

[Uncle Joe]

4. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Turborama.

[Turborama]

11. Thanks for the thanks, Uncle Joe.

And the K&R.

:hi:

[patrice]

6. CREDO is collecting calls about this. Started yesterday; it's just under 1000 at this point. PLEASE

CALL:

http://act.credoaction.com/call/oneoffs/index_44.html?cp_id=44%3Frc%3Dfbp

[Turborama]

9. Thanks for the link Patrice! Hopefully fellow DUers can help to substantially increase that number

:fistbump:

[patrice]

14. Let's keep re-posting. DUers are the kinds of folks who will be affected by this the most.

People gotta start advocating for themselves.

[Downwinder]

7. Good, trying to avoid all contact with Google was getting too complicated.

[Turborama]

8. Likewise

I use Gmail for my email, iGoogle for my homepage and Chrome for browsing (as well as Firefox & Opera). Oh, and of course the search engine.

[Soylent Brice]

10. K&R

[eggplant]

12. Of course they did.

Why would they care? Google has their own private network with endpoints all over the globe. They carry the bulk of their traffic on their private network, and only hop off to the local for the last little bit.

[LaPera]

17. Too late.....

As soon as I read the Huffington Post article I was so fucking angry, pissed-off, ready to be tied down and I quickly scribbled off & faxed out a one page note to Google....

GOOGLE –

YOU LYING, ANYTHING FOR A FUCKING DIME COCKSUCKING MOTHERFUCKING REPUBLICAN ASSHOLES!

THE REPUBLICAN CORPORATE MEDIA WHO NOW CONTROLS NEWS AND INFORMATION THROUGH CORPORATE CONTROL OF THE AIRWAVES, CABLE & PRINT – REPUBLICANS HAVE WANTED TO CONTROL INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET THROUGH CORPORATIONS, LIKE AT&T AND VERIZON FROM THE VERY BEGINNING AND YOU FUCKERS ARE SIMPLY GOING TO HELP IN HANDING IT TO THEM.

THE CORPORATE STATE WE LIVE IN NEEDS TO CONTROL CONTENT & INFORMATION IN ORDER TO SUPPRESS & BENEFIT. WHILE REPUBLICANS IDEOLOGY & AGENDA IS TO HELP WITH LEGISLATION FOR CORPORATIONS GOBBLING UP SMALL BUSINESS AND ENSLAVING WORKERS - ONE WITH ANY INSIGHT AT ALL CAN EASILY SEE THIS IN THE NEWS EACH DAY BY SCRUTINIZING THE JUST SAY “NO”, GREEDY, HATEFUL, LYING OBSTRUCTIONIST REPUBLICANS. EVERYTHING THEY DO IS FOR CORPORATIONS!

YOU CORRUPT MONEY-HUNGRY GREEDY LITTLE BASTARDS AT GOOGLE ARE JUST GOING TO ALLOW THESE CORPORATIONS TO CHARGE FOR FASTER CONTENT - WHO IDEA’S WILL AFFORD THIS, WHILE MAKING IT OUT OF REACH FOR OTHERS GIVING THE FASCIST CORPORATE PROPAGANDA PRIORITY - THE SAME WEALTHY & THEIR CORPORATIONS. THESE AREN’T JUST WORDS TO LAUGH AT WHILE YOU SALARIED LITTLE PIGS SUCK DOWN YOUR FUCKING COFFEE EACH DAY!

I guess I was really angry, take that! - Glad it's not to be - So says Google....

[Sabiancym]

18. Wow....

Over-react much? Google is the exact opposite of what you claim them to be.

[patrice]

21. Right on!

:hi:

[LaPera]

37. Bullshit!

IF Google did indeed sign with Verizon then they are EXACTLY what I claimed them to be - However, Google says they didn't We'll see and hope Google does the right thing and did not make a deal with Verizon - If you read my post then you would know I faxed BEFORE Google made their announcement denying the NYT article - Get it?

[NBachers]

34. Did you address it to Mistique Cano?

[LaPera]

38. Yes!

http://www.potomacflacks.com/pf/2009/10/google-hires-mistique-cano-as-manager-of-global-communications-and-public-affairs.html

[onehandle]

19. Uh-huh. This had to come from somewhere. What is the new Microsoft up to? nt

[whistler162]

22. Came from the same place similar stories have come from

in previous years.

[Deep13]

20. So they're still staking out their negotiating positions, then. nt

[SILVER__FOX52]

23. Right, we should trust anything, they say...........

If obama would offer just an ass-cracks, worth of leadership, this issue could be resolved.

[earth mom]

24. My Safari browser now says BING instead of GOOGLE-anyone know why?

Is it because of this report about google that they are denying?

[Triana]

26. They say THIS....while they do THAT....

This schmuck at the FCC is manipulating them, too. Sorry but I'm not ready to put down my phone or my pen/fingers and let those S.O.B.'s do this crap while I sit here in silence.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x552027

Thus, I repeat:

‎1. Call White House: 202-456-1111.
2. Call Congress: 202-224-3121.
3. Write FCC: http://j.mp/3yQkOU
4. Cancel Verizon internet: 888-553-1555

[Hissyspit]

27. "We have no intention of eliminating Net Neutrality." TRANSLATION:

"We are trying to figure out a way to eliminate Net Neutrality without the public realizing we eliminated Net Neutrality."

[Triana]

44. Exactly. Pfft. n/t

[boppers]

28. Non-techies try to turn tech into a political issue. Hilarity ensues.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2474
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2205
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2990
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3714

Differing traffic priority levels have been Internet standards for many years now. Those late to the party are, not surprisingly, quite confused.

[w4rma]

31. The capability may have been written into the protocols, but the ISPs aren't yet accessing and

and filtering based on those fields.

I suppose since you're defending the destruction of net-neutrality, Obama must secretly support it's destruction, also.

[boppers]

32. The ISP's (all the ones I've worked with, at least) have been traffic shaping since the 90's.

They didn't have to explain it to their users, and nobody gave them grief when they shut out spammers, malware, and other bad sites, or sold higher quality links for videoconferencing, and nobody even really *noticed* this issue, or turned it into a political cause, until somebody discovered that a popular file sharing tool was being throttled down to reduce traffic loads. I'm also not defending the destruction of something that *never existed*, I'm talking about why creating it is a bad idea.

WRT Obama, I don't speak for Obama, from what I understand, though, the administration policy is for freedom of speech on the internet, but not freedom of spamming. Net Neutrality is pro-speech *and* pro-spammer.

[Turborama]

35. Interesting perspective, thanks for the links.

I didn't know that.

[KamaAina]

29. Probably just as well if they don't.

Something tells me those roguish japesters at 4chan would not take at all kindly to this... :tinfoilhat:

[NeedleCast]

30. Damned If You Do, Damned if you Don't...welcome to DU

HuffPo runs and unsubstantiated story about Google and DU freaks out. Then, when Google issues a statement saying they did no such thing, the doom-n-gloomers on DU refuse to believe it.

[still_one]

33. gee, the NY Times screwed up again what a surprise. At least this didn't cause a bunch of people to

go to war

[dadzilla]

36. So what is real here?

If I had to make a guess, it's that the WSJ blew it.

[dharmamarx]

39. PR Nonsense

Google's CEO: "We have been talking to Verizon for a long time about trying to get an agreement on what the definition of what net neutrality is .... We are trying to find solutions that bridge between the hard core 'net neutrality or else' view and the historical telecom view of no such agreement."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10890495
In other words, Google is trying to undermine net neutrality, they just don't want to be called out on it. The interesting thing is Google's fear of being seen as just another dirty corporation (which, of course, it is). Google has spent a lot of resources trying to cultivate a reputation for being a good netizen. I wonder if their touchiness suggests that they feel vulnerable on this point or if they're just afraid the FCC will crack down on them.

[Hissyspit]

45. See post #27 for abbreviated version.

[dipsydoodle]

40. They'll keep it open

but assuming the US deals with the issue in the same way as the UK then bandwidth-hungry smart phones will start to be charged on usage.

[TBF]

42. Save the Internet -

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

[L0oniX]

43. Verison was already on my shit list.