Hmm, let's do the math on this one. Verizon, a company whose predominant line of business is mobile, reached a compromise with Google, whose most important initiative right now (Android) is also in mobile. Google's most important partner in growing its mobile foothold? The one and same mega-carrier, Verizon.
So what did these two companies agree upon? Namely, that network neutrality should remain enforceable on wireline networks, without extending the same to wireless.
What the frack? Isn't this like a doctor and pharmaceutical company agreeing that dentists should be regulated as before, while affirming that the same regulations aren't necessary for doctors?
Oh, and the language carves out a nebulous bucket for broadband operators to offer "managed services," which in the addition by subtraction scheme of things, could translate to something as basic as Google placing its content caches in said carriers networks, so as to provide a better experience than the competition (without such edge-based advantages) can offer.
And this completely sidesteps the darker cases where said managed services end up with the carrier playing the old Microsoft hand of "embracing, extending and extinguishing" competitive offerings -- perhaps by using lots of FREE (as of yet unannounced) Google software!
After all, as Microsoft proved during the PC and Internet era, and Android is proving again in mobile, when you can bundle something for free that heretofore was a premium offering, that is a great way to secure market share while squeezing off the oxygen of your competitor.
To be clear, none of this is inherently wrong in my opinion. It's what big companies do, so as to establish superior market position and all of the leverage that it entails. And today's announcement pushes for transparency and plain english for both wireline and wireless providers when communicating the intent to implement such new services - albeit, with ample room for self-interested parties to interpret what transparency actually means.
But, and this is the key. When a company is as sanctimonious as Google about being "open" and "doing no evil," and then:
A) Finds itself under the uncomfortable glare of doing back-room, fishy smelling deals with Verizon, hardly a champion of open;
B) Which follows similar efforts to align with Adobe in Flash, hardly a champion of open media formats;
C) Which also follows similar fuzzy-ness in its dealings in China (we still don't know if Google's Apps infrastructure was compromised and if so, what customer data was lifted; a truth that is at odds with the Google 'All Cloud Everywhere' credo);
It's raises more troubling questions than provides satisfactory answers. Along those lines, GigaOM's Stacey Higginbotham has some good analysis on today's announcement, and is also firmly in the skeptical bucket.
A note aside, it bears watching in the coming months how the terms "broadband," "wireline," "wireless" and "Internet" are re-factored by the parties in the Net Neutrality debate, as that is where these non-binding resolutions will suddenly shift meaning when it comes to implementation details.
For example, does broadband equate to wireline in an age of wireless broadband? Is Google committing itself to digging its heals in with Comcast when they balk at this? Or, for the sake of expediency, will-Google convey disappointment, but nonetheless support Comcast when it comes time to roll out Android based tablets?
Open Google is once again acting Open-ish, and today's announcement is nothing more than lipstick on a pig.
Related
- Open "ish": The meaning of open, according to Google
