Google Finally Stops Playing Mute On Net Neutrality, Says New Rules Won't Hurt Google Fiber In The Slightest

from the NOW-you-lend-a-hand? dept

Fri, Jan 30th 2015 3:40pm — Karl Bode

While Google was a major player in the net neutrality fight early on, the company performed a stark about-face on the issue sometime around 2010. Google was responsible for co-writing the FCC's original, wimpy net neutrality rules alongside AT&T and Verizon, which were jam-packed with loopholes and ensured that wireless networks and devices weren't covered at all. When called out on this, Google pretty feebly insisted they weren't being inconsistent, though it was clear to most folks that the company had shifted lobbying strategies in the hopes of fostering a better relationship across both sides of the political aisle.

As a result, when net neutrality supporters needed Google the most during the Title II debate, Google remained silent. Recently, when asked about net neutrality during press events, the company simply refused to comment.

Now that the Title II tide has shifted without Google's help, the company has re-entered the discussion to once again support meaningful net neutrality rules. We noted a few weeks ago that Google told the FCC in a filing that Title-II based rules could actually help their Google Fiber deployment by streamlining the utility pole attachment process. Now in a conversation with the Washington Post, Google has made its clearest public statement in years regarding support for Title II net neutrality rules:

"The sort of open Internet rules that the [Federal Communications Commission] is currently discussing aren't an impediment to those plans," Google said in a statement, "and they didn't impact our decision to invest in Fiber."

That's of course in contrast with AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, which continue to proclaim that if Title II neutrality rules are passed, they'll stop investing in broadband networks and people will lose their jobs. Of course, the fact is AT&T and Verizon were already dramatically cutting back on fixed-line broadband investment and cutting those jobs anyway, and in many of the areas Google is now looking at for Google Fiber deployments. Again, Title II is only a worry for ISPs interested in abusing their gatekeeper position to make an extra buck, and that's not Google Fiber's MO as a disruptive new market entry looking to make friends.

Regardless and whatever the motivation, it's nice to see Google join net neutrality supporters on the right side of the street again, even if it's a day late and a dollar short.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: google fiber, net neutrality, open internet, title ii
Companies: google

11 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2015 @ 4:53pm

omg u goog shil why u no call for the deth pensltu for goog execs!!11!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2015 @ 4:53pm

I'm surprised Google took so long to comment on net neutrality, seeing as YouTube is the largest streaming service provider in the world.

Eventually wired/wireless telcom operators were going to start extorting Google with paid prioritization fees. Fees the wired/wireless telcom industries would justify by saying their interrnet exchange point links are overly saturated and are too costly to upgrade.

Even if Google offered to pay for the IXP link upgrade costs, themselves. Like Cogent offered to do, but Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, and Time Warner Cable declined Cogent's free upgrade offer.

http://www.multichannel.com/news/content/cogent-ceo-we-ll-pay-peering-upgrades/355855

It looks to me like Google was simply trying to keep from pissing off the wireless telcom industry heavyweights. Seeing as it has a strategic partnership with them. Through the sales of Android phones which operate on their wireless networks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 30 Jan 2015 @ 9:32pm

If you don't want it, I'll take it off your hands
So if AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast are all insisting that Title II means they won't invest anymore, and Google is saying that Title II will have no impact on their decision to invest in broadband, then it seems to me the answer is simple: Stop giving the previous three companies any public money or perks related to broadband, and instead give it all to Google to use.

If they don't want to bother investing in broadband, let someone who is still interested take up the slack.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Jan 2015 @ 1:46am

Re: If you don't want it, I'll take it off your hands
Or, better yet, make a purely non-profit corporation, force the ISPs to pay for their lats mile connections, and use that money to invest in upgrading.

After all, if the infrastructure is onyl in the profitable areas, then it's not infrsstructure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 1 Feb 2015 @ 4:51am

FIOS
Google should just buy out FIOS from Verizon and Frontier. If they no longer want to be in that business or support it, then Google could just take over. That would give them a lot of customers very quickly. And with just a hardware upgrade, they could probably take it to 1Gps cheaply and easily.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
chillinfart, 1 Feb 2015 @ 8:50am

bull****
Google took the opposite way in South America.

One of his representatives in peru agreed with two issues against net neutrality: the brazilian MarcoCivil (that put exceptions and a red button on it's rules) and two attempts from MTC and OSIPTEL that broken net neutrality in 2013 and 2014.

And FYI, that started after FCC visited our local IT regulator (OSIPTEL).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 2 Feb 2015 @ 4:10am

Re: bull****
Weird, while it's not perfect the final version of Marco Civil seems very reasonable in the neutrality front. I might have misinterpreted though. Of course you may be talking about the first proposal from Mr Azeredo, it was terrible in any way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 2 Feb 2015 @ 4:12am

Re: If you don't want it, I'll take it off your hands
GOOGLE SHILL! BURN! GOOGLE IS EVIL!

Ahem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
scatman, 2 Feb 2015 @ 6:23am

why is it impossible
Why is it impossible for several different Internet Service Providers to COMPETE for my business in each American city--the same way that several different gas stations and grocery stores COMPETE in most US cities?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 3 Feb 2015 @ 4:09am

Re: why is it impossible
Because that would cut into their profits, and they've collectively decided that it's better to let each of them have their own 'areas', and keep prices artificially high, rather than edge in on each other's turf, and have to lower prices to compete and draw in customers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fail, 3 Feb 2015 @ 5:56am

The first mistake was assuming Google really gives a damn about consumers. As a business it's just good sense to see which side the ball drops on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]