I can’t claim that I fully understand the Verizon-Google net neutrality proposal, mainly because it is so weasely and evasive that it’s going to take a long time to find all the loopholes in this rather nasty piece of work. Ars Technica has started the hard work, and I’m sure others will follow.
In general, it’s a pretty transparent effort to cede some sort of net neutrality to wired broadband in return for a carrier-controlled, non-neutral wireless Internet. Since wireless is where all the money’s at, and since wireless providers charge exorbitant fees for transferring text messages, lock down many of their devices so only carrier-approved apps can run, and generally fuck with consumers any way they can, this is an unacceptable trade-off.
Google’s role in this is clearly, obviously “evil”, by which I mean that they’re using their market dominance to attempt to force through a proposal that’s bad for entrepreneurs, competitors and their customers. It’s not surprising that this is happening, since Google is out to maximize shareholder value. The White House doesn’t have that excuse. If you believe Larry Lessig (and I do), they’re telling the FCC to “go slow” on net neutrality, which is stupid and short-sighted.
Corner Stone
What? Bullshit!
Flipyrwhig will be by shortly to let you know how obviously you feel Obama is doing this just to spite you.
arguingwithsignposts
Citizens united decision. Am I the only one who’s a little put off by the tone of this statement?
ricky
The right margin problem is weasely too and I cannot fully understand it nor read this blog until it is fixed.
Karmakin
My understanding of the whole mess, which to be honest I think people are reacting so strongly about I can’t get an accurate read on it, is that it’s about Google stopping opposing QoS rating on wireless networks (which are much more bandwidth sensitive than home internet), something that Google has long opposed for the internet in general.
The question is if Verizon will be encouraged/allowed to say, prioritize YouTube packets over Hulu packets. The joint press release says no, but people don’t exactly trust this. I think what Google wants to do is create generalized QoS classifications and use that to sort out wireless bandwidth issues.
For the non-techies, what that means is that say video and direct communications packets (that’s how information is sent across the internet) would get priority over things such as browsing, e-mail and IM, which don’t require instant speed.
This shouldn’t be an issue for wired internet, however the wireless spectrum is more limited, and as such there really are maximums on the amount of bandwidth that can be effectively used. Finding the best way to use this spectrum is what Verizon/Google are trying to do here.
That said, I still think it’s a bad idea, and that it will eventually be abused. However, I don’t think either Google or Verizon have bad intentions going in.
BR
Here’s the thing that I think is not understood by folks who don’t do networking (in the computer science sense): Google is effectively a tier-1 provider already. That means they directly connect to basically any network worth its salt on the planet. That means that they have almost no need for prioritization of their packets because they deliver their packets directly to the destination in question. They need no transit provider
So the notion that net neutrality would / wouldn’t help / hurt Google is basically nonsense. Just by virtue of having a massive private network just for their own data, they need to rely upon no one else. The only parallel I can think of is Akamai, which is as widespread as Google, but instead has its boxes within ISP networks rather than peering with them.
JC
Net Neutrality For Dummies
1) Net Neutrality means once a packet of data gets onto the public internet they are processed in the order they are received.
2) Net Neutrality doesn’t mean Youtube can’t offer faster download speeds then I can from home. They do offer much faster download speeds. It means once the data leaves youtube it’s treated no different then data from my pc or from your iPhone on the public internet. They can put more packets on the internet faster then me, but they can’t cut to the front of the line.
3) Net Neutrality is like electricity for the internet. Verizon can by more then me and use more then me, but their electricity doesn’t get to them any faster then mine. That’s what they want to change.
4) Net Neutrality is a complete no brainer and got the internet to where it is today. The idea of changing that is monstrous. I could accept taxing the internet sales, but I could never accept removing net neutrality.
BR
@JC:
This statement is only true for non-Google entities. As I posted above, because of the way interdomain peering agreements work, Google can deliver its data directly at no cost directly from its servers to the domain (ISP) of the user requesting the data. So they have no need for prioritization in transit service. Only if an ISP is so crappy that it is internally overloaded (as opposed to overloaded at peering / transit / the edge of the network) does the concept even begin to apply, and even then usually there isn’t much opportunity for prioritization in the few hops the traffic will transit.
MikeJ
OT but Ayn Rand claims another victim:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/movies/09neal.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
jetan
The proposal is more than just weasely. As far as I can see, it commits them to nothing….Just absolutely nothing. Any modification to any existing service could be reconstrued into a second-tier pay-as-you-go service. I was glad to see the FCC squawk, but I am guessing this has about a 90% chance of sailing through. Sickening, but what did you want for your buck?
Martin
@BR: Google is a tier 1 provider *except* in the mobile space. This deal is quite simply Google trying to get priority bandwidth for Android handsets before the iPhone hits and destroys Verizon’s network, and ruins one of the better marketing benefits of going Android over iPhone right now. Verizon, of course, is trying to extract additional revenue from Google to keep their mobile network operating.
Verizon is the more important member to look at here, not Google. And yes, Google is quite clearly going down the evil path.
Guster
@BR: I don’t understand any of this stuff. But if Google doesn’t need anything, why are they getting involved in this?
Toast
since Google is out to maximize shareholder value
You know, when the totally nonviolent revolution happens, I hope the shareholders are the first ones up against the totally metaphorical wall.
BR
@Martin:
I agree that Verizon is the interesting one to watch here. Google imho doesn’t have as much invested in its phones as Apple does in its. (Just by virtue of it being an open platform and Google not really making nearly as much off of it as Apple does.)
And in that case, it’s not really “Google” that’s getting priority, but rather individual end users. The traffic could have nothing to do with Google, and could never touch a Google server or service.
Not defending the statement, just trying to clarify the technical side.
mclaren
Hasn’t google denied it’s talking with Verizon at all, let alone discussing net neutrality?
Google denies verizon deal.
JC
Th@BR:
I’m not sure we are actually in conflict and I won’t begin to claim to know how all the routers are currently setup around the world. But, even if everything you say is correct it doesn’t undermine the fundamental principle that ISP’s shouldn’t treat data differently based on who sent it.
Once Cox cable gets its data from google it’s not one hop to my house.
Google shouldn’t be allowed to pay more to go to the front of the line in all the hops Cox makes.
Even if there were only two hops it’s still wrong on principle.
Like I said.
They can put more packets on the internet faster then me, but they can’t cut to the front of the line.
I don’t think people understand Net Neutrality at all and I wanted a simple way for them to understand.
Martin
@BR: Google has an immense amount invested in Android. Open or not, Google is an advertising company and they need access to your data in order to function. Android is designed to ensure they keep getting that as users move off of PCs and into mobile activities. Apple and other mobile players are a massive threat to Google, and Google is going to take desperate measures here to keep that data flowing. If not, they’re going to fall very fast.
Remember, Google has only one product – ads. If they lose that, they’re fucked – everything else is a non-profitable service designed to drive ads.
Martin
@mclaren: A joint policy proposal for an open internet
So, they deny a deal but issue a joint policy statement.
Please pay attention.
AhabTRuler
@Toast:
Eh, probably. The real shame is that they won’t necessarily be the first to “literally” die, simply that le menu peuple aren’t even the afforded the luxury of a wall.
Martin
@JC: If you look at the policy proposal, it’s completely self-serving:
So, they propose everything but wireless be neutral, but wireless because it’s, um, new and shit, shouldn’t be neutral. (Please nobody notice that Verizon has virtually no wired presence and Google is betting the proverbial farm on wireless.)
BR
@JC:
I agree in principle, though there are sort of two scenarios that might occur. One is a struggling ISP that hasn’t upgraded its equipment or infrastructure in a while, that is facing internal congestion. There, prioritization will help someone get to the destination with less loss and therefore greater bandwidth. But that’s the sort of ISP that won’t have support in their routers for fine-grained differentiated service. The other type of ISP – the one that has been doing upgrades – won’t have significant internal loss and therefore it’ll be the peering points where the loss will happen. (Of course there are more than these two types of ISPs, but many probably fall into roughly one of the two categories.)
I’m all for net neutrality, I just think the rules as they’re generally proposed don’t really get at the heart of the matter for big companies like Google.
BR
By the way, there’s more than one way of achieving net neutrality. While the policy approach is preferable, it’s possible to do it regardless. Here’s a short paper on one such approach:
http://conferences.sigcomm.org/hotnets/2006/yang06technical.pdf
grimc
Somebody at the FCC is paying attention. One paragraph statement from Commissioner Copps:
Genachowski’s immediate response to Verizon and Google’s deal was to halt the negotiations. We could still get screwed, but at least they’re pausing to think about it.
Stillwater
Short take on net-neutrality: there is money to be made in getting rid of it, hence, it will be got rid of.
Our quibbles and gripes merely delay, but don’t change, that inevitability.
Jeff Spender
Larry Lessig is right, in my opinion. I’ve studied him pretty in-depth and he has great insight into a lot of the current situations.
There was a time I cared about things like this, but then I realized there wasn’t anything I could do to stop it and I was driving myself insane.
Unfortunately, the only thing I can do is to not consume any media–which is what I’ve decided to do.
JGabriel
Karmakin:
Verizon ALWAYS has bad intentions. Only someone who has never dealt with them could think otherwise.
Verizon is evil corporatized. Anyone who becomes CEO of Verizon is bound by a pact with Satan to serve as his bodily host on earth, fuck two horses a day with Satan’s greasy cock, and sacrifice daily two pre-adolescent virgins of each sex in a Dionysian ritualistic bloodbath that would make Dario Argento blanch. Verizon deliberately drives its customers to serial murder with a calculated escalation of frustration to rage to insanity via its customer service department. There is a VIP circle of Hell reserved specifically for Verizon employees that makes the Nazis jealous.
Give me a few hundred thousand more words, and I’ll tell you what I really think of Verizon.
.
salacious crumb
there is an article in Slate that gives some perspective as to why Google may be doing this. That still doesnt mean that their actions are kosher, but it explains the why behind this Google’s decision. worth a read I think..
here is an excerpt:
http://www.slate.com/id/2262952/
Corner Stone
@JGabriel:Hmmmm… So…are they hiring for their CEO?
Silver Owl
I’m sick of CEOs screwing up a good thing every chance they get.
Next we’ll have the car companies telling us we have to pay more for a car if we’re going to drive it to places they can’t shake down.
JGabriel
@Corner Stone: No idea. You’ll have to check with Satan’s minions.
.
Omnes Omnibus
@Corner Stone: Do you have an MBA with a specialization in HR?
Martin
Something that people are missing in this discussion is that voice calls as a distinct segment of mobile bandwidth is short for this world. It’s only a matter of time before mobile is flat-rate metered bandwidth with voice being handled by VOIP/proxy. That’s Google’s ultimate plan with Google Voice.
This isn’t just about getting YouTube delivered faster, but allowing carriers and other agents to throttle (or prefer) voice calls as well. Verizon and other carriers are terrified of losing their voice revenues (which are massively disproportionate to bandwidth) but with a deal with Google they could guarantee bandwidth in exchange for preserving those revenues, making Google Voice/VOIP a preferred service and throttling alternatives.
AhabTRuler
@Silver Owl: Not the car companies, but certainly the roads are being commoditized. Not only with the toll-roads and lanes (including some for-profit, not just contract services to gov’t. or direct operation), but I am sure someone will advocate breaking up “the state monopoly on transportation infrastructure access,” and privatizing all roads. With GPS it would be simple to associate your vehicle to a prepaid or credit account, and the computers can track your user charges depending on route and conditions (e.g. in a snowstorm, which would require plowing and salt or sand, the consumer could bear the associated costs plus a smallsurcharge for the additional degradation of the road surface). We could establish different tiers or plans depending on how fast you like to drive and how much traffic you want to deal with (assuming you can afford the freeways).
It’ll be great!
Corner Stone
@Omnes Omnibus: Actually just a PhD. Maybe if I agree to do Tuesdays AND Thursdays in the barrel?
Ross Hershberger
It gets more evil than that. If Verizon has a deal with Google that basically slows down non-Google content, then Google will become the content provider of choice for Verizon wireless users because Google’s pages don’t take forever to load on mobiles. To increase the leverage of this advantage, all Verizon has to do is DECREASE the speed of its data delivery, which would make non-FGoogle content even more unusably slow.
They get paid by Google to disadvantage their own customers, and get to use less resources in the process. Verizon execs must be exchanging warm, soapy low-fives over this concept even as we speak.
Omnes Omnibus
@Corner Stone: I don’t know, I think my JD trumps your PhD in the hierarchy of evil.
ulee
It sure is a drag that I can’t read this site because of format malfunction.
Corner Stone
@Omnes Omnibus: So, we are competitors then. Alors, I will see you at dawn on the fields of dishonor.*
*Arby’s
Omnes Omnibus
@Corner Stone: I shall be there at 10.
mclaren
@Martin:
I read the Google policy proposal. Here’s a quote from google’s policy proposal:
Google has explicitly called for a new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices with a presumption against prioritization of Internet traffic — including paid prioritization.
This is the exact opposite of what all the newspapers have been claiming about Google.
Can you show me any evidence whatsoever that google has engaged in talks with anyone to prioritize internet traffic?
Even one scrap of evidence?
Even one scintilla?
As far as I can tell, all the available evidence shows that Google vehemently opposes prioritizing net traffic in any way, by any means, for any reason, either for pay or done for free.
So Mistermix’s assertions about Google’s “proposal” are 100% bullshit. Google is only “proposing” to do nothing — to let the internet remain as it is, with no paid prioritization of net traffic by anyone. That’s not a “proposal.” That’s letting things stay as they are, which means net neutrality as the default status quo, which is fine by me, and by most other techies.
The Ars Technica hysteria seems a big reach. “Any technically sound proposal to block unwanted traffic” clearly means spam. You want to prohibit ISPs from blocking spam? Really? Seriously?
As for Google’s suggestion that the FCC should not have rulemaking authority, google can suggest whatever it wants, but the law plainly gives the FCC authority to make whatever rules it likes for common carriers. So that’s just smoke and mirrors.
Have you been paying attention, Martin?
John Cole
I’m a bit embarrassed to admit this, but I honestly do not understand all the complexities of net neutrality. I understand and support the basic principle (or at least what I think is the basic principle), but when I read in-depth analyses I’m just left scratching my head and deferring to people I trust.
Stillwater
@mclaren: So Mistermix’s assertions about Google’s “proposal” are 100% bullshit.
One thing my friends at NPR told me about this is that Google’s proposal preserves net neutrality within 4 distinct spheres of data transfer types (video/gaming, voice, email, surfing) but that each sphere can hae a different price set by the provider. Eg, gaming gets a higher price/byte than say email. So, they’ve carved out segments of the internet which can have variable prices, but there is net neutrality (as it was defined earlier in the thread) within each sphere.
But, apart from this burp of regurgitation, I have know idea what I’m talking about.
AhabTRuler
@Omnes Omnibus: Nah. It’s not the degree, it’s what you do with it.
I have more dual degree non-practicing lawyers at work than I can shake a stick at. Now, they went to all that trouble just to use the JD to spread evil as a hobby? WTF?
or
Shorter: Just because a JD comes at the cost of your soul doesn’t mean you have to be a dick about it.
DPirate
Utility companies need to start charging for rent of their electrons.
RareSanity
@Martin:
Any phone capable of 3G mobile data service already does this. This is why, on devices that support it, people can have a voice conversation and web surf at the same time.
I agree with a lot of your observations about this situation, however, I don’t think this is about the iPhone, or Verizon. I take a more cynical look as this being two heavyweights that got together and tried to come up with an agreement they both could accept before the FCC came up with one that would give stuff they don’t and not have stuff they do want.
It’s basically Google and Verizon saying, “Look FCC, we can get along, we can agree on things, no need for you to get involved.” And, if I put on my rose-colored glasses, I interpret the FCC Chairman’s response to be:
“You asshholes. I brought you in, in good faith, to try and come to a consensus on how this should happen. But, since you children think you can manipulate the process, fuck off. You’ll get what I decide this rules to be. Now get the fuck out of my office!”
There are just to many players that can get hurt if ISPs start throttling different services. Start speeding up YouTube, and negatively affecting others, what do you think all of the networks involved with Hulu are going to do? What about the NFL and ESPN? All of the opposing entities have deep pockets.
I really think Google and Verizon attempted to assert some control over the situation and it backfired from the FCC and the public’s response to their “proposal”.
Omnes Omnibus
@AhabTRuler:
You gotta do what you love.
RareSanity
@John Cole:
Unfortunately, that is exactly what Google, Verizon and the rest are banking on. They want to upcharge providers for access to their user base, then they want to upcharge customers for unrestricted, or “priority” access to certain providers.
It’s all pretty sinister, but, I actually have a good bit of respect for the FCC Chairman based on his statements since he was appointed.
Yutsano
@Omnes Omnibus: I’ll bring the Horsey Sauce and a camcorder. This really should be preserved for posterity.
Omnes Omnibus
@Yutsano: Splendid.
Omnes Omnibus
@AhabTRuler:
Quoi?
Yutsano
@Omnes Omnibus: I may be reading this wrong, but I don’t think that was directed at you specifically. At least that’s not how I’m interpreting the comment. I could be wrong however.
@Omnes Omnibus: Heh. I hope not either. I think you only get one duel a year, plus I only have so much Horsey Sauce.
Omnes Omnibus
@Yutsano: I would hope not.
ETA: I am ever so soulful and non-dickish. Ask anyone.
Fax Paladin
@mclaren: The key word in both those quotes is wireline. As in: not wireless, which is what is at issue here.
Martin
@mclaren: Because Google’s proposal exempts mobile traffic, which is the only traffic it (and Verizon) are worried about.
That’s like Apple saying that there should be net neutrality for anyone running Windows but faster access for anyone using Mac OS and you declaring that Apple was in favor of neutrality because you didn’t bother to read the 2nd half of the sentence.
Joe Buck
If Google, Verizon, Apple, AT&T, and the other incumbents get their way, we’re screwed. For a view of the future, just look at Apple’s app store for the iPad and iPhone. There is only one seller: you have to buy all of your software from Apple. Software developers can only sell (or even give away) apps by signing a contract they are not allowed to discuss, getting Apple to approve their app (there is no appeal, and apps that hurt Apple or AT&T’s business model are banned). Apple gets a cut of every sale. In effect, iPad and iPhone users live in the world’s largest company town. And Google and Verizon want to cooperate to lock down the Android/Verizon world the same way.
I’m a Linux geek from way back, so Microsoft bashing is kind of a habit. But Microsoft is a model of openness and freedom compared to this brave new wireless world.
We’ll see if the Obama administration has the stones to stand up against our new benevolent masters. Legally they are on much firmer ground demanding neutrality in the wireless world, because the airwaves belong to the public.
handy
@mclaren:
The key part of your quote that I think gets to concerns:
First, “wireline broadband” sticks out to me as being about what others here have already said, that wireless is off the table as far as net neutrality is concerned. In an increasingly nG world, this is not a small concern.
Second, mistermix’s link to the ars article makes a very compelling point regarding “harm to users or competition.” This is the press release, the legislative document states “meaningful harm,” which is pretty much begging the question. What is meaningful harm? Who decides this?
Further along in that same document, there’s a clause that states:
Well that’s reassuring now, isn’t it? We won’t prioritize internet traffic…unless we decide we will.
Suffice to say there’s a lot to pick through with this announcement and a lot of it doesn’t look good. I would, as they say, write my congress person. And the FCC, who could use this opportunity to push back and take lead on one of the defining technological issues in the coming years.
Martin
@RareSanity:
Why Verizon and Google? That partnership only makes sense in the context of Android. Otherwise they have basically no relationship whatsoever.
Sorry, but businesses don’t engage in serendipitous relationships like this. If they’re going to take the risk (and believe me, Google would recognize the risk in this) they’re doing it for a serious business reason, and the only reason that I can see they would have is Android.
handy
@Joe Buck:
This is because Microsoft has been (inexplicably) clueless in the mobile/wireless realm.
Martin
@Joe Buck: Well, you have it wrong with the iPhone and iPad. Apple provides a completely non-reviewed, no-contract, totally free (as in both beer and speech) app development channel that they have invested significantly behind. But people don’t like to talk about that because it makes Apple seem a little less evil…
Tim in SF
Martin
@handy: Inexplicably? Microsoft has certainly gotten a lot right with Windows and particularly the server bits, but outside of Windows and Office, they’ve gotten nothing right. Not XBox, not Zune, not Windows Mobile, nothing outside of their core Windows + Windows Server and Office.
RareSanity
@Martin:
Well if you make Google the constant, since they would be affected the most, then make the carrier the variable, it’s pretty clear. AT&T would jeopardize its relationship with Apple if it entered into an agreement with Google. Remember, Eric Schmidt and Steve Jobs aren’t on the best of terms, they don’t want Apple to accelerate iPhone releases for other carriers. Then factor in that Sprint has had a slow leak in its business for the better part of a decade and T-Mobile is just not big enough to matter.
It makes perfect sense that Google would approach Verizon. Verizon damn sure didn’t approach Google.
Ailuridae
Too lazy to mail this to the front pagers:
Fed Will Meet With Concerns on Deflation Rising
I hope the meeting is constructive and doesn’t arrive too late to help those Americans (and entire portions of America) that could have desperately used a more proactive Fed six months or even a year ago. From a purely tribal perspective there is nothing they can do to help the Democrats in the election but at this point that’s a far lesser concern for me.
beltane
OT, and don’t break out the red sirens yet, but the word is that the White House will nominate Elizabeth Warren to head the new consumer protection agency. http://dailykos.com/story/2010/8/10/891681/-Katrina-@-The-Nation:-WH-to-Nominate-Elizabeth-Warren
Gromit
@mclaren:
But only on wireline networks. They explicitly exclude wireless, ergo Google and Verizon want the freedom to discriminate when it comes to packets on their wireless networks.
Or do I misunderstand your point of disagreement?
Ailuridae
@Martin:
AoE and Flight Simulator?
handy
@Martin:
You realize you just said “Outside of all their non-mobile/wireless ventures, which account for $60 billion ytd in total revenue, they’ve done nothing right.” (And yes I’ll grant you xbox–not mobile tech–has been a loser for them)
ETA: And, anyway, it is a bit inexplicable considering Microsoft’s relentless ability to keep up with the curve over the years–GUI OS, midrange server products, the Internet (remember when people were wondering if Netscape would finally be that MS-killer?). Do they get it right the first time? No, but they keep at it and get it better each iteration. But for whatever reason, they’ve just laid a brick in mobile/wireless. One dog after another.
Martin
@RareSanity: AT&T isn’t worried about their relationship with Apple. Apple knows that they have to be available on all carriers to succeed here. They’re eager to add Verizon once the exclusivity contract expires, but they aren’t eager to drop AT&T (as much as they hate them internally).
Google knows that this is risky. They’ve gotten this far with people’s data because they’ve largely been seen as fair. They’re putting that at risk, and they’re doing it, I believe, because Apple is shutting Google out of the data they need (including on the iPad). They need to keep Android growing, and outside of the US, it’s not faring as well. Apple doesn’t have carrier exclusively in many places outside the US, and on carriers where there’s choice between Android and iPhone, iPhone is winning. Google is very concerned about a Verizon iPhone. Right now the bulk of their marketing advantage in the US is ‘not AT&T’. When they lose that, their case gets a lot harder.
No, the intersection between Verizon and Google in the mobile space is the iPhone and iPad. I might have their objectives wrong, but I’m pretty sure I have their motivation right.
Martin
@handy: Except they’re not making any money at these things. Fuck, any business can be successful if making money is excluded from the formula.
Gromit
@Joe Buck:
Yeah, before Apple came along, the mobile application market was a utopia of openness. I can’t believe you are reading this story, and your first thought is to start ranting about Apple’s closed platform, as if there is any comparison with what Google and Verizon are trying to do here.
General Stuck
OT
Ask an ye shall receive.
How has the militarist Obama failed you today?
Restrung
This is excellent news for Balloon-Juice!
handy
@Martin:
I was merely clarifying my parenthetical “inexplicable” as it related to Joe Buck’s rather unqualified claim that Microsoft has been a model of “openness and freedom” compared to the current crop of players in wireless.
Yutsano
@General Stuck: I’m amazed that didn’t get picked up sooner here. I noticed that awhile ago but I figured someone would have posted something by now.
General Stuck
@Yutsano: Many seem too busy trying to exorcise the Kain demon spirit from Balloon Juice. And good news from Obama doesn’t seem to travel all that fast in these here parts these days.
RareSanity
@Martin:
Why wouldn’t it be? A high percentage of their high revenue customers are with them specifically because of the iPhone, the more carriers that have the iPhone, the more AT&T will have to compete for those customers on price and service. And if they have to compete against Verizon on those two fronts, well, I’, betting my money on Verizon.
This is just not true. Have you seen the sales numbers for Android last quarter?
Source
Android sales are steamrolling iPhone, worldwide. Google is activating 200,000 handsets a day.
As far as the iPad, the Android tablets have already started, with the higher tier models due first quarter next year.
Martin
@General Stuck: A real progressive would have cut funding 90% each year and given that money to food stamps and teachers. Too little too late.
Yutsano
@General Stuck: It;s also not germane to this thread specifically. In fact if it hadn’t been mentioned by the next open thread I was going to throw that up there. We may have to do that as it is anyway.
handy
OT: More evidence on the internet he allegedly invented that Al Gore is a big fat liar about climate change.
burnspbesq
@Omnes Omnibus:
Disagree (unless you are John Yoo posting under an assumed name). With relatively few exceptions, JD is inherently amoral. It’s the client who’s evil. And despite what Liz Cheney would have you believe, that evil doesn’t rub off.
Gromit
@RareSanity:
Not that I know any different, but the link you provided only compares US sales of Android and iPhone.
burnspbesq
@beltane:
Hot diggity dawg! Nominate, or recess-appoint after the House goes back home?
burnspbesq
@General Stuck:
Don’t get too excited there, General. I read “service support contractors” and that brings to mind Agility Logistics, not Xe. Hope I’m wrong, but fear I’m right.
burnspbesq
@RareSanity:
“As far as the iPad, the Android tablets have already started, with the higher tier models due first quarter next year.”
Which is one quarter too late. Miss Christmas, and they are well and truly fucked. There will be no demand in Q1 of next year. Oops.
Yutsano
@burnspbesq: I would LOVE a recess appointment, but I think she gets named and obstructed. It’s actually good politics for Obama, how better to tar the Republicans as in the pocket of Wall Street than to oppose their biggest critic? But ultimately she should be appointed after the election if they still are obstinate about it.
asiangrrlMN
My head hurts. I, for one, will welcome my Googley overlords. Now, can we please have a damn open thread? Kthxbai.
General Stuck
@burnspbesq: Whether it’s support or security, they are fairly big cuts, or sounds like they are, some 33,000 of them. I don’t expect them to cut the security side that much until we have wrapped up combat operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. You can’t harsh my mellow from this good news, that just the willingness to do it on whatever side is a major plus./
Yutsano
@asiangrrlMN: What she said.
asiangrrlMN
@Yutsano: I spoketh, and Anne Laurie listened! She’s a good egg, that Anne Laurie.
eco2geek
As Ars Techica points out, Verizon and Google put huge loopholes into their proposal. (This stuff is more legalese than technical.)
For example:
In other words, making some Internet traffic have greater priority than other Internet traffic is not OK, unless it is.
In other words, Verizon, you can do whatever the hell you want.
So who would? Oh yeah, your pals in Congress, the ones you’re
writing legislation forlobbying and giving money to.That one doesn’t even make sense. The FCC has the authority to “oversee” Internet access, but can’t “regulate” it? H’mm.
Lysana
And nobody noticed the part that said new technologies wouldn’t be subject to net neutrality anywhere at all? So develop a “better” protocol for something like videos, leave it free at first, then when the product hits near-ubiquity, slap ’em with a premium.
Got a complaint about it? The FCC will please to fine companies after the fact for a grand maximum of $2 million. But they can only act after complaints are filed. They can’t pre-emptively ban anything.
This sucker stinks and stinks hard. I’d post my own analysis, but FYWP, you think I write for a spammer site.
Murrow Fan
I’m not fully up to speed on this Google-Verizon deal, but for clarification it should be noted that Verizon Communications Inc. ≠ Verizon Wireless. Or at least not entirely, anyway.
Technically speaking, there is no company whose legal name is “Verizon Wireless”… the legal name is Cellco Partnership.
Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, is a joint venture between Verizon Communications, and the British-based Vodaphone Group, the world’s largest mobile network operator. Verizon owns 55% and Vodaphone owns the remaining 45% of Cellco Partnership.
This is different than AT&T, which fully owns is mobile communications division previously known as Cingular Wireless. In fact the company currently called “AT&T” is not the original AT&T. SBC Communications (formerly known as Southwestern Bell) purchased the original AT&T, but because of the significant brand equity of the name “AT&T over “SBC”, the company took on the name AT&T following the merger (and Cingular Wireless became AT&T Wireless), but their early brand strategy was to refer to themselves as “the new AT&T”, and they immediately launched a redesigned company logo.
Funny thing about telecoms today is that 26 years after the original American Telephone & Telegraph got broken up by the Feds, almost all of the legacy companies have been swallowed up by the two current largest telecoms in America, Verizon and AT&T.
scarshapedstar
Believe it or not, there are many of us who prefer Android phones to iPhones. And we use them on the interwebs. On Verizon.
If and when the iPhone comes to Verizon, I don’t think it will shake things up that much for a number of reasons.
1) Mac cultists are already on contract with AT&T.
2) People who like GSM will obviously stay with AT&T.
3) If you’re with Verizon and you like smartphones, you probably already have an Incredible, Droid, or Droid X. And switching to a dumbed-down phone — one without Swype, for fuck’s sake! — is just maddening.
I guess the big question is how many grannies out there are sticking with Verizon because of the network, and they’ve been using the same phone for 8 years, but their grandchildren are always talking about their Ipods or whatever so they might pick one up. But I doubt they will bring down the wireless network on their own.
Shinobi
A few of the commenters at Buzzmachine seem to imply that we should not worry our pretty little heads because we are anonymouse or something along those lines.
And if I were google, or verizon, I would be worried about some serious technological backlash.
I guess I’m not getting an android after all, sigh.
D. C. Forbes
‘The finance industry has effectively captured our government, and recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform.’ (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/7364/)
How can one resist a critique/article with a title like this one?:
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/why-google-became-a-carrier-humping-net-neutrality-surrender-monkey/
And finally…for the musically-inclined…an up-against-the-wall, rip-roaring performance of ‘Fast Buck Freddie’ by the Jefferson Starship (09/01/2007):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9UTq9cZ0r0
Namaste,
David