Hacker News Reader

Comment by spot | Hacker News Reader

ACTUAL FACT: they got the neutrality concession on that spectrum and it will apply to verizon's 4G network.

And what would they do if that auction was taking place today? Google only supported net neutrality when they were an outsider with nothing to lose and everything to gain. Now they're part of the club and, conveniently, compromise is the virtue of the day.

I don't understand why people equate Google winning or losing with its net neutrality stance. Google has been hugely successful on the net. Surely it would be in their interest to not have net neutrality and to have their traffic favored over competitors, but they're not advocating that. I really don't follow your argument.

When a supposedly whole-hearted net neutrality supporter flips overnight to a watered-down proposal with the fastest-growing market excluded from consideration, you have to question whether they have any credibility at all. Particularly when their partner in crime is the number one enemy of net neutrality and someone Google is almost entirely dependent on for Android's success.

How can you reconcile this view with the new Google where "wireless is already very competitive so no need for regulations"?

How is that not giving in?

that's not a view, it's a simple matter of history.

as for the future they say: "for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye."

Are these rules on the 700MHz spectrum not going to take effect? I've seen nothing that suggests that's the case. Certainly a policy proposal doesn't have the force necessary to change these rules. If anything, those rules are evidence that wireless will become more open over time.

As they clearly state, they can't see enough reason to force regulation yet. And with at least double the number of providers (far more if you count resellers) compared to landlines (USA-centric view), they're right.

Now, you can still argue that despite competition mobile internet needs regulation. But that's a much tougher argument to make.

What? So a few years ago Google believes that wireless needs to be kept open, makes a big bet and succeeds in ensuring as much.

Nowadays instead it does not require regulation because there's plenty of competition.

What has changed in the last few years to make Google change their mind? Have the number of wireless competitors gone up? From what I heard you (=Americans) are ending up with 2 large wireless companies (AT&T and Verizon), and a couple of little ones.

If anything competition has decreased. And yet Google feels regulation is not necessary anymore.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com