Google, Verizon, Net Neutrality, and iTunes Cloud

**Google**: Makes money by selling ads. Has a [smartphone OS][android] that helps them sell ads on search results, apps, etc. Upset with Apple’s foray into advertising. Starting to feel the pinch of a possible iPhone for Verizon, their most visible Android partner.

[android]: “Android”

**Verizon**: Makes money by selling bits. Sells dozens of phones with dozens of different operating systems from dozens of different manufacturers. Has [sunk some money into Droid][droid], but isn’t married to the platform. Will go with whichever benefits their bottom line most.

[droid]: “Droid Does”

**Apple**: Makes money [selling software][ios], and [some bits][bits]. Just got into the ad space with [iAds][iads]. Their iPhone sells its own bits and sells its own ads. Doesn’t like making concessions to wireless carriers, and will call them out in public. If they launch a version of their iPhone for Verizon, Verizon isn’t likely to get a cut of their App, Music, Video, or Ad market. Those are all bits that Verizon wants to charge extra for.

[iads]: “iAds”
[ios]: “iOS”
[bits]: “Apple 3rd quarter Results”

**[iTunes Cloud][cloud]**: Live streaming of a user’s purchased iTunes tracks to any supported device. Only likely supported phone platform? iOS, the iPhone’s operating system. No phone carrier is going to get a cut of tracks purchased for this service.

[cloud]: “iTunes Cloud rumor”

**[Net Neutrality][netneut]**: Means that carriers aren’t allowed to slow down certain kinds of internet traffic to help their business goals. Means that iTunes Cloud can stream as many tracks as the user is willing to buy bandwidth for. Means Verizon doesn’t get a cut aside from their 3G bandwidth spectrum pricing, which is getting cheaper all the time despite their (recent) complaining about capacity problems.

[netneut]: “Network Neutrality on Wikipedia”

**Dots**: [Partially connected][goog].

[goog]: “A joint policy proposal for an open Internet”


“Wireless is Different”

[Wireless isn’t different, AT&T][link]. It just suits your business model that it be treated differently. It’s enough to clog your bullshit filter.

With bullshit.

[link]: “Wireless is Different | AT&T Public Policy Blog”


Voogle Wireless

[Google’s 2006 PSA for net neutrality underscores the severity of their about-face this week.][link] Is there any way Google can still claim this isn’t about money?


[link]: “Voogle Wireless”


Why Google Became A Carrier-Humping, Net Neutrality Surrender Monkey

[Ryan Singel for Wired:][link]

>Compare Monday’s statement to this one, from a post on Google’s official blog in 2007: “The nation’s spectrum airwaves are not the birthright of any one company. They are a unique and valuable public resource that belong to all Americans. The FCC’s auction rules are designed to allow U.S. consumers — for the first time — to use their handsets with any network they desire, and and use the lawful software applications of their choice.”

Compare, indeed. Yes, it’s true that people and corporations change their minds, and they’re welcome to. But Google has apparently changed its mind for one reason: They stand to make more money with their pals at Verizon. They just won’t come out and say it.

[link]: “Why Google Became A Carrier-Humping, Net Neutrality Surrender Monkey (UPDATED) | Epicenter |”


The EFF Reviews Verizon and Google’s Net Neutrality Proposal

[Mostly the same as what has been going around][link], but this time covered in the candy shell of an actual lawyer’s thoughts.

[link]: “A Review of Verizon and Google’s Net Neutrality Proposal | Electronic Frontier Foundation”


There’s Only One Internet

[John Bergmayer for Public Knowledge:][link]

>[…] Google CEO Eric Schmidt claims to be crafting rules that will protect “the next Google.” But with weak “rules” like the ones his company has proposed, he can rest assured that the next Google will be…Google. If the Verizon/Google proposal is adopted, the window of openness that allowed companies like his to thrive and grow will be closed.

[link]: “There’s Only One Internet | Public Knowledge”


Craig Aaron on The Google-Verizon Pact: “It Gets Worse”

[This is really, really, bad stuff][link]. Wonder what the news coverage will be like? Will any mainstream non-blog sources even bother?

[link]: “Craig Aaron: Google-Verizon Pact: It Gets Worse”


Google and Verizon Say No To Wireless Net Neutrality

[Read the full policy on Google’s policy blog][link].

Here’s how it reads to me: The “wireline” (read: everything but cell networks) internet, where it helps Google’s business that providers are not allowed to make one site or service load faster than another (Say, Bing gets priority over Google Search) net neutrality is sacrosanct. The “wireless” (cell) internet, with Verizon, where it helps Google’s business if traffic to their sites and services load faster, net neutrality isn’t a big deal, and should be abandoned. “For now.”

This is the PATRIOT Act of the wireless internet. If net neutrality for wireless is abandoned now, we will pretty much never get it.

[link]: “Google Public Policy Blog: A joint policy proposal for an open Internet”