5th August 2010
|
#1 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jul 2008 Location: new york city
Posts: 1,503
Thread Starter | Google violates it's own policy - so much for the hype
Calling all Fanboys who believe that Google represents the "good" fight against the industry/corporate complex - here's a little real-world info that may change your mind:
First, read the text of the letter below from Chairman Eric Schmidt in 2006: A Note to Google Users on Net Neutrality: The Internet as we know it is facing a serious threat. There's a debate heating up in Washington, DC on something called "net neutrality" – and it's a debate that's so important Google is asking you to get involved. We're asking you to take action to protect Internet freedom. In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet. Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay. Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight. Please call your representative (202-224-3121) and let your voice be heard. Thanks for your time, your concern and your support. Eric Schmidt Net Neutrality Then read the news from today regarding a pending pact between Google and Verizon: Google (GOOG) and Verizon (VZ) are in talks to allow the big Internet service provider to speed up the delivery of online content to Web users if the content's creators pay for this, according to a report by The New York Times. Citing sources close to the discussion, the Times says the agreement could be reached as soon as next week.
With such deals, deep-pocketed content sites could pay to ensure that their content received priority over other sites as it made its way to consumers. Such agreements may eventually lead to higher charges for Internet users. The pioneering pact between Google and Verizon, if finalized, could overturn the tenet of Net neutrality, in which no form of content is favored over another -- it's something consumer advocates are fighting fiercely to protect.
The Times also says any deal "could also upend the efforts of the Federal Communications Commission to assert its authority over broadband service, which was severely restricted by a federal appeals court decision in April." The publication also reports that a Verizon spokesman said that the company was still engaged in the larger talks to reach a consensus at the FCC and declined to comment on other negotiations.
| 
| | |
5th August 2010
|
#2 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jul 2008 Location: new york city
Posts: 1,503
Thread Starter |
In the final analysis, this isn't that surprising. What is surprising, however, is that whole hordes of people fall so easily for the "this time will be different" ruse. I mean, we only went through the last one nine years ago . . .
So as per two-time lucky loser Eric Schmidt, let us remember that "Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight." | |
| | |
5th August 2010
|
#3 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,415
|
I think in principle, some degree of net neutrality is good. I don't like the idea of Verizon then throttling Bing to favor Google. But I do not support net neutrality overall, as I think throttling is completely appropriate for people who have been caught pirating.
So I guess this news is good and bad. But more good overall, since I think ISP's should assert control over their networks.
| |
| | |
5th August 2010
|
#4 | | Gear addict
Joined: Oct 2006 Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 344
 | Quote:
Originally Posted by mobius.media  I think in principle, some degree of net neutrality is good. I don't like the idea of Verizon then throttling Bing to favor Google. But I do not support net neutrality overall, as I think throttling is completely appropriate for people who have been caught pirating.
So I guess it is good and bad. But more good overall, since I think ISP's should assert control over their networks. | ISP's throttling their own subscribers really has nothing to do with net neutrality.
| |
| | |
5th August 2010
|
#5 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,415
| Quote:
Originally Posted by TC Custom Audio ISP's throttling their own subscribers really has nothing to do with net neutrality. | Doesn't it? Net neutrality requires ISPs to treat all traffic from all users on their network equally.
From Wiki: The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for the same level of access, then the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access.
From Verizon via Zeropaid: CEO Ivan Seidenberg says [Verizon] has to be able to deal with the 5% or 10% of customers that are “abusers…chewing up all the bandwidth,” and that “net neutrality” interferes with its ability to do so.
If net neutrality was mandated, I think ISP's would find it impossible to administrate throttles, blacklists, or disconnections.
| |
| | |
5th August 2010
|
#6 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jul 2008 Location: new york city
Posts: 1,503
Thread Starter | Quote:
Originally Posted by mobius.media Doesn't it? Net neutrality requires ISPs to treat all traffic from all users on their network equally.
From Wiki: The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for the same level of access, then the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access.
From Verizon via Zeropaid: CEO Ivan Seidenberg says [Verizon] has to be able to deal with the 5% or 10% of customers that are “abusers…chewing up all the bandwidth,” and that “net neutrality” interferes with its ability to do so.
If net neutrality was mandated, I think ISP's would find it impossible to administrate throttles or disconnections. | My issue is not with the idea of net neutrality - which is obviously a chimera at this point. Slowing down a few users is very different from favoring a few providers.
My issue is with the hypocrisy of Google - who also, by the way, are against any kind of "throttling" as it applies towards piracy.
| |
| | |
5th August 2010
|
#7 | | Gear Guru
Joined: Mar 2005 Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 17,429
|
Y'all are arguing about faux news... Quote:
Google on Thursday denied that it has reached a deal with Verizon that would provide priority Internet service to those willing to pay for it, and said it remained committed to the idea of net neutrality.
Reports emerged in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal Thursday night that Google and Verizon were close to reaching a deal that would let Verizon send certain online content more quickly to customers who pay more.
Google this morning denied the existence of such a deal.
"The New York Times is quite simply wrong," a Google spokeswoman said 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."
Verizon also denied it.
| Google Denies Priority Internet Access Deal With Verizon | News & Opinion | PCMag.com
Battle of the fanboyz, looks like to me. Nothing to see, here. I'm for moving along...
In other, perhaps more substantial news, Google has reportedly pulled the plug on the little-understood and already almost forgotten Wave web app which looked really interesting -- if you could figure it out and -- even more improbably -- if you could find someone else using the collaboration tool in order to have someone to collaborate with...  Google's open source Android phone OS might well shoot past Apple's iOS by 2012, but that hardly means the company isn't completely capable of bumping around in the dark...
| |
| | |
5th August 2010
|
#8 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jul 2008 Location: new york city
Posts: 1,503
Thread Starter | Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 | Yeah, nothing to see - as you didn't see my post above yours. Apparently you buy that the story is a fabrication.
You should look into the NYT details a bit and what emerges is private talks apparently aimed at making agreements before the F.C.C. role and jurisdiction (they support net neutrality) is clarified.
But yeah, that's not so important . . . move along . . .
For those who prefer to think for themselves:
The F.C.C., meanwhile, favors a level playing field, but it cannot impose one as long as its authority over broadband is in legal doubt. It has proposed a solution that would reclassify broadband Internet service under the Communications Act from its current designation as an “information service,” a lightly regulated designation, to a “telecommunications service,” a category that, like telephone service, is subject to stricter regulation.
The F.C.C. has said that it does not want to impose strict regulation on Internet service and rates, but seeks only the authority to enforce broadband privacy and guarantee equal access. It also wants to use federal money to subsidize broadband service for rural areas.
While the F.C.C. is gathering public comment on its reclassification proposal, it has convened the private talks, which are overseen by Edward Lazarus, the chief of staff to Julius Genachowski, the F.C.C.’s chairman.
The talks have produced some common ground among the participants on smaller matters. But one participant, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the group members agreed not to discuss their deliberations publicly, said there had been little movement “on the few big issues that are the most important.” Frustrated with that lack of progress in the last two months, direct talks between Google and Verizon have accelerated, according to people close to the discussions who were not authorized to comment publicly.
Google and Verizon have their own interests at stake in negotiating separately. The Android operating system from Google is used on many Verizon phones, including the Droid, a competitor to the iPhone from Apple.
Consumer groups have objected to the private meetings, saying that too many stakeholders are being left out of discussions over the future of the Internet.
Mr. Lazarus said the meetings “are part of our efforts to identify the best way forward in the wake of the Comcast case to preserve the openness and vibrancy of the Internet.”
| |
| | |
5th August 2010
|
#9 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jul 2008 Location: new york city
Posts: 1,503
Thread Starter |
If companies like Google actually supported Net Neutrality - and I am not arguing for the merits of it, just about the hypocrisy of at least Google - then it would be very easy to come to terms with the FCC. Instead, the FCC is the only one at the table who is supporting a simple view of Net Neutrality.
The other players obviously don't think that that's going to happen and are angling to protect their piece of the pie. And, of course, at some point they can all blame someone else. Sounds like the Potsdam conference over again - and we know how well THAT worked out . . .
| |
| | |
6th August 2010
|
#11 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,415
| Quote:
Originally Posted by adpz | That's an unfortunate one. However, I think whatever verdict Google can muscle here will be overwritten by the current Federal 'U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations taskforce' 'Operation In Our Sites' case being brought against filespump.com.
That site was explicitly a Rapidshare/MegaUpload search engine. If it is found liable for indexing pirate cyberlocker files, Google may find themselves forced to filter such files as well, whatever the result of their California suit against Blue Destiny Records.
It is still unfortunate that such a small player is being forced to make the first case against Google, but hopefully federal politics (and new laws on the way) will outweigh such a state suit.
| |
| | |
6th August 2010
|
#12 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jul 2008 Location: new york city
Posts: 1,503
Thread Starter | Quote:
Originally Posted by mobius.media That's an unfortunate one. However, I think whatever verdict Google can muscle here will be overwritten by the current Federal 'U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations taskforce' 'Operation In Our Sites' case being brought against filespump.com.
That site was explicitly a Rapidshare/MegaUpload search engine. If it is found liable for indexing pirate cyberlocker files, Google may find themselves forced to filter such files as well, whatever the result of their California suit against Blue Destiny Records.
It is still unfortunate that such a small player is being forced to make the first case against Google, but hopefully federal politics (and new laws on the way) will outweigh such a state suit. |
Very good point - and you are likely 100% correct. Like Microsoft before them (in so many ways), it is unfortunately going to take government intervention before Google responds with business practices that are fair and equitable. For a future-obsessed company it all seems so 20th century . . .
| |
| | |
6th August 2010
|
#13 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jul 2008 Location: new york city
Posts: 1,503
Thread Starter | | |
| | |
6th August 2010
|
#14 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Mar 2009 Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 4,471
|
Why cant people just leave Sh*t alone..money, money, money, we mean nothing!!
| |
| | |
6th August 2010
|
#15 | | Gear Guru
Joined: Mar 2008 Location: the big rack
Posts: 11,248
|
it's very likely the world we live in will be largely influenced by the agenda to aggregate and monetize everyone for the benefit of advertisers. everything else will be secondary to that primary purpose.
| |
| | |
6th August 2010
|
#16 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jul 2008 Location: new york city
Posts: 1,503
Thread Starter | Quote:
Originally Posted by EFF it's very likely the world we live in will be largely influenced by the agenda to aggregate and monetize everyone for the benefit of advertisers. everything else will be secondary to that primary purpose. |
There's no doubt that business model of Web 2.0 revolves around that.
All the more reason for 3.0, constructed and formed by creative people.
| |
| | |
6th August 2010
|
#17 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jul 2008 Location: new york city
Posts: 1,503
Thread Starter |
Here's Don Henley speaking extemporaneously on the subject, after his recent court victory (DeVoe vs Henley): Asked what advice he has for other musicians and songwriters whose songs are used by campaigns without permission, he said, “When you think you’re right—when you know you’re right—when someone has stolen and misused your intellectual property, you have to do something about it.... I could have let this go, but I had to stand up and do something about it.”
Henley blasted all unauthorized uses of his music, whether by politicians or just amateurs making remixes, mash-ups, and similar unlicensed uses on sites like YouTube. “I don’t condone it,” he said of such practices. “I’m vehemently opposed to it. Not because I don’t like parodies or satires of my work. But it’s simply a violation of U.S. copyright law.” He added, “People in my age group generally don’t like it. Songs are difficult to write; some of them take years to write. To have them used as toys or playthings is frustrating.” Henley noted that he does not license his songs for commercials and only rarely does so for uses in films and television.
And Henley reserved particularly ire for YouTube, which he described as a “fence” for stolen intellectual property. “YouTube is one of the biggest violators or copyright laws in the world,” he said. “A tremendous amount of the content on YouTube is a copyright violation.... I’m not a fan of YouTube at all for their part in aiding and abetting copyright violations.” YouTube, which hosted the videos at issue in the DeVore case, took them down in response to DMCA notices, but DeVore filed counter-notices, and YouTube would have re-posted them but for the filing of the lawsuit. (YouTube, of course, recently won a major copyright decision in a case brought by Viacom and other copyright owners, including a putative class of music publishers, when a federal court ruled that the site was protected by the DMCA’s safe harbor for hosts of user-generated content.)
And Henley lamented what he views as the lack of response in Washington to rampant infringement on the Internet: “The politicians are not supporting creators on these issues, and it’s extremely disappointing.” He blamed what he views as the lack of action on the political power of Internet companies. “The people who create and run these sites like YouTube have a lot of clout,” he said.
We spend so much time on this site arguing about the little ivory-tower musical things and there is not enough awareness or interest in how the industry around us is changing. There is not enough awareness of the implications - people get caught us talking about bands selling t-shirts instead.
I don't use Google for anything if I can avoid it. Any musician with a conscience on this site needs to consider doing the same - however tiny a gesture it is.
| |
| | |
6th August 2010
|
#18 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jul 2008 Location: new york city
Posts: 1,503
Thread Starter |
Need some more?
"The Internet giant Google said on Wednesday that it would change its search policy for most of Europe to allow advertisers to buy and use as keywords terms that have been trademarked by others." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/te...ref=technology
So, like with a label such as Fueled By Ramen - which has a nice web shop selling apparel and merch - someone else can now overbid for the keyword "Fueled By Ramen" and set up their own shop selling knock-offs, or even links to torrents.
This is simply extortion, by Google. Companies will now have to be the top bidder to retain Google search rights to their own trademarked names. And where is the outrage? If this was a name-calling piracy thread it would have 40 pages by now. Forget about that compressor plug-in kids, this is what you need to be paying attention to. | |
| | |
6th August 2010
|
#19 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jul 2008 Location: new york city
Posts: 1,503
Thread Starter |
And here's Google's CEO Eric Schmidt acting prescient at a tech conference (Techonomy) yesterday:
"Schmidt said that society really isn't prepared for all of the changes being thrust upon it. "I think it's time for people to get ready for it."
Thanks Eric  | |
| | |
6th August 2010
|
#20 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jul 2008 Location: new york city
Posts: 1,503
Thread Starter |
There.
Make that your sig on GS from now on . . .
| |
| | |
6th August 2010
|
#21 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jul 2008 Location: new york city
Posts: 1,503
Thread Starter |
Some more recent thoughts from Schmidt - this one espc. interesting as he says that Google is in favor of Net Neutrality, but, eh, not really:
"In August 2010, Schmidt clarified his company's views on network neutrality: "I want to be clear what we mean by Net neutrality: What we mean is if you have one data type like video, you don't discriminate against one person's video in favor of another. But it's okay to discriminate across different types, so you could prioritize voice over video, and there is general agreement with Verizon and Google on that issue."
| |
| | |
10th August 2010
|
#23 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jul 2008 Location: new york city
Posts: 1,503
Thread Starter |
A week after basically denying that there were any talks going on, Google and Verizon announced a "strategy pact" that provides their self-serving version of Net Neutrality.
You can read it at the link below, but in it Verizon and Google basically agree to keep wired networks neutral, but all restriction are off when it comes to wireless networks. Stated differently, Google supports Net Neutrality when the internet comes over hard wires, but does not support Net Neutrality when the internet comes over wireless. http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/09/google-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained/?icid=main|main|dl3|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.engadget.com%2F2010%2F08%2F09%2Fgoogle-and-verizons-net-neutrality-proposal-explained%2F
This framework would allow Google and Verizon to control/sequence/charge/penalize for all traffic that they pipe to you over a wireless connection. It is basically a private internet at that point.
From my perspective, this fits with where Google's apparent leanings are - which is essentially to privatize the internet as much as they can. It is sort-of like AOL but in reverse.
As per the Rosetta Stone case, Google would like to be able to charge companies for their own trademarked name when it appears as a keyword. See what's already been approved in Europe, and also the Rosetta Stone case that Google won over here in the US.
Google is already not search-neutral. That is, their vaunted algorithm is adjusted to let Google's features appear above others in search results - such as GoogleMaps above Mapquest. It is an easy step that they would like to adjust - with Android and through Verizon - how the internet appears to the end user - likely making Google's version of the wireless internet a pay-to-play business model.
Anybody doubt me? Let's hear it . . .
And let's remember the immortal words of current chairman Eric Schmidt when railed against any loss of Net Neutrality back in 2006 when Google didn't have the muscle to not tell the truth: Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay. Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight. Please call your representative (202-224-3121) and let your voice be heard. Thanks for your time, your concern and your support. Eric Schmidt | |
| | |
10th August 2010
|
#24 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 620
|
well some of this is to be expected.
if google didn't put their map service above mapquest, then they would be willfully shooting themselves in the foot. it's the key advantage to having your own search engine.
and here's the thing that no one is stating. google could be removed from power within a matter of a year. i don't mean eliminated. i mean removed from the top seat of search engine-hood.
there are 2 reasons google won the seat.
1. the validation algorithm, that uses previous traffic to rank results.
2. minimal advertisements within the results & page
as a musician, you would be extremely foolish IMO, to the level of shooting your own self in the foot, to avoid Google for the tool that it is, with the traffic it has. Sure, campaign against them on the side, but still encourage traffic with them wherever possible.
as a person looking to the future, with the same concern you have, i take delight in knowing that the moment the folks start migrating away from them for the forsaking of the initial reasons for success, the masses will follow, much like myspace lost out to facebook.
am i saying google will be replaced, no. they could be replaced, it's totally up to them. if they take the advertisements to a place that the average user (completely stupid for all practical purposes) notices it, and there is a decently funded/publicly known solution that appears without that level of advertisement force feedery, then their days are indeed numbered.
and if you think there aren't well funded people waiting in the wings with both money and product for the right opportunity, then you aren't paying attention.
unfortunately, i am of the belief that the tiered system is already present to some degree, and will only grow over time.
on that subject, we need to look forward as well. what is the future of data through the air/line?
data throughput will increase just as storage capacity or clock cycles have. as i see it, this will wind up reducing the value of the provision in the first place. in other words, the cell phone, as it becomes the PC / do everything device, will be able to be provided a connection from more sources as we go forward. this connection will just be a direct internet tie in (not proprietary cell phone coverage) and any device we use in the future will need only to determine the connection and make any subsequent transfers - be it voice / video communication or internet transfer. this will reduce the power that a provider has, as they can be easily replaced in a matter of seconds with a second provider.
__________________
The filter comes when the even playing field meets the simplified and transparent database of public opinion.
| |
| | |
10th August 2010
|
#25 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,415
| Quote:
Originally Posted by adpz As per the Rosetta Stone case, Google would like to be able to charge companies for their own trademarked name when it appears as a keyword. See what's already been approved in Europe, and also the Rosetta Stone case that Google won over here in the US.
Google is already not search-neutral. That is, their vaunted algorithm is adjusted to let Google's features appear above others in search results - such as GoogleMaps above Mapquest. It is an easy step that they would like to adjust - with Android and through Verizon - how the internet appears to the end user - likely making Google's version of the wireless internet a pay-to-play business model. | ie. Internet payola.
| |
| | |
11th August 2010
|
#26 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jul 2008 Location: new york city
Posts: 1,503
Thread Starter | Quote:
Originally Posted by mobius.media ie. Internet payola. | Exactly.
In the link below, a former White House communications employee describes Google's new policy succinctly as the "cable-ization of the internet".
It is also not comforting to know that the Google and Verizon pact fit on two pages of paper. The devil is in the details. Is the Google-Verizon Plan a Setback for Net Neutrality? - TIME | |
| | |
11th August 2010
|
#27 | | Gear Head
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 57
|
As long as I can still get on Gearslutz.
| |
| | |
12th August 2010
|
#28 | | Gear Guru
Joined: Mar 2008 Location: the big rack
Posts: 11,248
| A paper trail of betrayal: Google's net neutrality collapse Quote:
But the sheer volume of earlier commentary penned by Google that runs contrary to its newest recommendations isn't going to disappear down the memory hole.
Advocates of net neutrality will look at these documents and charge betrayal. Opponents will cheer a powerful company coming to its senses. Scholars will have to decide whether this week saw one of the most remarkable volte-faces in telecommunications policy history.
| | |
| | |
12th August 2010
|
#29 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jul 2008 Location: new york city
Posts: 1,503
Thread Starter | Quote:
Originally Posted by blue nine |
Thanks for the link. thumbsup
| |
| | |
12th August 2010
|
#30 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jan 2010 Location: UK
Posts: 4,437
|
__________________
.
Great music and mixing isn't making a three minute portal to Exit reality. it's making a three minute portal to Enter it. | |
| | | |
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
